I concur completely. The cops are there to keep the peace and to resolve disputes. I think you will find the vast majority of them to be fair, professional, and reasonable.

And really only care if they have nothing better to do or someone dies.

I may have taken your statement out of context.

My problem is that I've come across too many people in authority who, rather than acknowledging their mistakes, will try to bully you into submission. I've had a cop tell me that I'd better watch myself at night, because I made a legitimate complaint about him to his superior. And I'm basically a very lazy person; I don't have the energy to go around filing complaints unless there is a very real problem.

Just as your personal opinions and perceptions are colored by your background as a law-enforcement officer, so are mine as a civilian who has had less than enjoyable dealings with your fraternity :). I can see, if not agree with, your point of view; you should be able to see mine.

Next time, don't volunteer the ID, and stick with the "am I under arrest" routine. They won't arrest you in that situation where you have quite clearly not done anything to place the flight, crew, or fellow pax in jeopardy. Plus, if it's not too late in the day, they may very well have another flight to catch.

The only thing you may want to try to do in the future is have a non-LEO and non-crew witness around when grilled by the overzealous FAMs. YMMV. The best approach (IMHO) would be to actually take your attorney on an M/R with you and troll for the FAMs again. That way, you can pull the old Thomas Crowne line: "This gentlemen happens to be my attorney." My humble bet is that would end the FAMs inquisition in very short order.

Yup. And my lawyer enjoys his fees more when paid in tax dollars. So?

You wonder why anyone of above-average intelligence automatically assumes that LEOs are power-hungry knuckle draggers? Those types of statements.

You know, that actually happened to me once. I was investigating a crime report where the suspect was present, and was accompanied by his attorney, who had been having dinner with him. The incident ended in the suspect being cited into court and released, but not before he was handcuffed and searched. When all was done, the suspect said, "You treated me like a common criminal." His attorney looked at him and said, "He did exactly what he was supposed to do. Let's go." I've dealt with lots of lawyers, and they don't particularly frighten me. I don't think I'm unique in that aspect.

Copwriter,

I can't help noticing that all of your, "... and then I arrested him after he challeged me" stories involve people who deserved arrest - they were publicly inebriated or were already suspects in a crime. I've never in my life been in either of those unfortunate situations.

If I hadn't done anything to be arrestable, you bet I'd refuse to answer questions. Anything I say can only get me into a worse place than I start if I start out lacking justification for arrest. Actually, I never said I'd actually *say* "Arrest me or leave me the hell alone." I said that was my motto, mostly developed as a result of the warrantless and unjustifiable searches of my body by the TSA. To an officer, I'd be respectful but still not answer any questions other than name, rank and serial number.

Just keep asking, "Am I under arrest?" followed by, "Then am I free to go?" Repeat as often as necessary. Unless you are actually suspected of having committed a crime, you will walk away eventually. I speak from experience. By the way, there's no need to be nasty about it. Just ask these questions over and over again in a nice way.

Bruce

You seem to assume that cops regularly arrest people who don't deserve to be arrested. I don't think this happens very often. There are many, many instances when a cop observes something that appears to be evidence of criminal behavior, but turns out to be perfectly innocent. By refusing to answer any questions, you're denying the officer the information that is the most useful in making this determination. It's your choice, and it's certainly your right, but I don't think it's in your best interest, despite what others here might tell you.

A big part of the job of policing is resolving disputes. These are far more often resolved by mediation than by arrest. When I would encounter someone who had been the subject of a complaint by someone else, and they initially refused to speak to me, I would tell them, "What would you rather have - their word against yours, or their word against nothing?" Granted, if they had been in the wrong, it wouldn't necessarily be in their best interest to talk to me. But, most of the time, there's a little wrong on each side, and the truth of the matter lies somewhere in between the two accounts.

When we completed a call for service, we had to report a "disposition code" over the radio. Examples were "MA-1" (one misdemeanor arrest), "HOJ" (handled other jurisdiction - handed the case off to another agency), or "UTL" (unable to locate). By far, the most common one used was "AC" - advised and complied.

I understand what you're saying and it is reasonable. I think you and I are just picturing a somewhat different scenario. You're saying that you question people because they're suspected of doing something wrong and you're giving them a chance to clarify. I'm assuming I've done nothing that rises to the level of "appears to be evidence of criminal behavior" and therefore that as Bruce said earlier, there is a very high likelihood I'll be released if I keep asking if I'm free to go. Bruce's example was perfect - he was questioned by an officer for doing nothing more suspicious than walking to his car in a parking lot. Bruce was right to assume he wouldn't be arrested for such a thing.

The thing is, I don't foresee ever interacting with you, if you're a non-airport police officer. I don't run into trouble with police in my daily existence. The major exception is at airports. In my experience, flying is very likely to cause me unpleasant conflicts with the TSA, with FAMs, and with the whole gamut of intrusive private-parts-touching, improper-questioning, warrantless-searching, publicly-humiliating-the-innocent, papers-please authoritarians. It's my experiences at the airport that have made me defiant and resistant to help these agencies beyond what I'm compelled by force to do.

say that three times fast.

That seems to imply they only have this one opportunity to speak, or forever hold their peace which is not the case. If you say that to someone who's scared or unsure of what to say (if anything), it may extract an unnecessary statement.

...just another reason people don't trust the cops.

The only way that you are likely to interact with me is if you are sitting next to me in the airport or on the plane. I haven't been a working police officer for over ten years.

I think you need to allow for at least the possibility that I was only trying to find out what happened, and didn't foresee having to arrest anybody. Your relationships with cops are far more likely to be adversarial if you start out expecting that they will be.

That's accurate. I've done it quite a few times. The key word is "selectee".

The goal is not to frighten anyone. The goal is to ensure that one's presumption of innocence is intact and that one's rights are preserved in full.

Both of these things have been known to happen outside the company of counsel. It's amazing how much more attention seems to be paid to the proverbial rules in the presence of one's attorney.