How to end a conversation with USCIS
May 24, 2008 | 9:47 am
#46
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Georgia and Manila, PH
Programs: NW Gold Elite, DL, HH, Victoria Court Select Member
Posts: 637
Your level of ignorance of police procedure is almost as staggering as your social class bigotry.
If a detective, or any other police officer (the police powers are exactly the same) asks questions of someone, and is told they have retained counsel, the questions can go right on. Whether counsel is retained or not, the person being questioned is free not to answer, beyond special circumstantial requirements to truthfully state your name, provide a driver's license if driving. etc. Now, if the person being questioned says anything similar to "I want a/my lawyer," then questioning must cease. The detective might explain that the person is not a suspect and that he is simply gathering information form the investigation, but there's no obligation to answer any of the questions, lawyer or no lawyer. And the prominence of the lawyer has no bearing at all. As long as I know I'm operating within the limits of my police powers, I don't care much if you bring in Gerry Spence. It's your money. Actually, I'd enjoy meeting him. The worst that can happen to me is that your attorney will say "My client will answer no more questions," which the client could have told me himself.
Far more often than not, a detective will be asking questions to develop or follow up investigative leads. This is what I suspect was happening in the office theft described previously. Everyone can refuse to answer questions, and the most likely outcome will be that the person responsible for the theft will get away with it. If you think that's a good outcome for you and your employer, so be it. I wouldn't mention that attitude in your next performance review.
As for your wardrobe comment (and it.s J,C. Penney, by the way), this infers to me that you regard anyone with clothing you view as inferior to your own to be as inferior to you. One of the brightest and most capable people I know is a neighbor who is a retired Navy master chief petty officer. He was responsible for the nuclear reactor compartments on a number of submarines and on the aircraft carrier Enterprise. I rarely see him wearing anything other than a khaki shirt and bib overalls. Is he your inferior, too?
By the way, I only buy socks and underwear at J.C. Penney. My suits and jackets come from Men's Wearhouse, but I used to be partial to Sears.
That wouldn't be a new experience. The laughs usually stop when I unsnap my handcuff pouch or hand them the clipboard with the admonition, "Please press firmly; you are making four copies."
First, the "vast majority" of cops that make it to detective are working an assignment that will end when they are rotated back to patrol or promoted to sergeant, which also sends them back to patrol. The assignment are usually from two to five years, depending on a variety of circumstances. Only very large agencies, like LAPD or NYPD, have more or less permanent detective slots, and even then, a promotion will put them back in uniform until they can get back to detectives. Many detectives in the permanent slots like their jobs, and never take promotional exams.
Most cops are "career seekers," at least when they start out. Some decide they would rather do something else, and move on, like with any other line of work. Many work in uniformed assignments until retirement because they choose to. I had several opportunities to go to a detective assignment, and I always turned it down. I liked patrol. There are many reasons that officers tried to get into or stay in detectives, but being smarter than a patrol grunt was not part of the equation.
If you know of detectives, or anyone else, that has built a case against someone they knew to be innocent, I suggest that you give your local FBI office a call. I wouldn't tolerate that, and I don't know of any other law enforcement professional that would. I think your view here is based mainly on TV and movie plots. Those are entertainment, and bear little resemblance to real life.
The only intimidation factor working here is that you know you had better have your ducks in a row when you go up against certain defense attorneys, because they won't miss much and will exploit any weakness in a case. That just means you have to be careful and do good journeyman work. My area of expertise was DUI enforcement, and I was told by more than one defense attorney that they regarded me in the same way on those cases. I had done a lot of them and knew what bases to cover, and how to bring out the facts in my reports and testimony. Had I been the primary case officer on say, a child molest case, they probably wouldn't have been so concerned, because I didn't have the expertise and experience that a more seasoned sex crimes investigator would have.
And you need to remember that when the case is under investigation, the investigator usually doesn't know who they might be going up against at trial. The intimidation factor, if any, just doesn't apply.
I think I said that.
Actually, the training is more targeted at knowing the constraints placed on the police by the constitution and case law. It's like having your tax return prepared by a knowledgeable accountant. The accountant may see perfectly lawful ways of allocating income and reporting deductions that would escape someone less experienced, and reduce your tax bill in so doing. That's tax avoidance as opposed to tax evasion, and the IRS will tell you that you should take every lawful deduction to which you're entitled. Similarly, the police are investigating violations of the laws that protect everyone, and if the police did not take advantage of every lawful investigative opportunity available, they would not be doing the job entrusted to them. If the police ask a question they are not permitted to ask, the response and any evidence that stems from it can be suppressed at trial (the "fruits of the poisonous tree" doctrine).
Rather than me being a "puppet and cannon fodder," I think you are an uninformed grandstander, spouting rhetoric on topics you learned about while watching TV.
Certainly, there are episodes of police misconduct, just as there are with every other line of work I can think of. When public authority figures mess up, it's big news. But fewer than 1% of law enforcement officers are ever accused of serious misconduct, and a fraction of those have those accusations substantiated.
So, the next time a cop asks you a question, feel free to laugh in his face and tell him you don't have to answer. He'll set you straight as to whether you have to answer or not. Either way, you will have positively identified your personality type, which he will file away for future reference. On that note, it is generally good practice not to taunt the alligator until after one has negotiated the swamp.
If a detective, or any other police officer (the police powers are exactly the same) asks questions of someone, and is told they have retained counsel, the questions can go right on. Whether counsel is retained or not, the person being questioned is free not to answer, beyond special circumstantial requirements to truthfully state your name, provide a driver's license if driving. etc. Now, if the person being questioned says anything similar to "I want a/my lawyer," then questioning must cease. The detective might explain that the person is not a suspect and that he is simply gathering information form the investigation, but there's no obligation to answer any of the questions, lawyer or no lawyer. And the prominence of the lawyer has no bearing at all. As long as I know I'm operating within the limits of my police powers, I don't care much if you bring in Gerry Spence. It's your money. Actually, I'd enjoy meeting him. The worst that can happen to me is that your attorney will say "My client will answer no more questions," which the client could have told me himself.
Far more often than not, a detective will be asking questions to develop or follow up investigative leads. This is what I suspect was happening in the office theft described previously. Everyone can refuse to answer questions, and the most likely outcome will be that the person responsible for the theft will get away with it. If you think that's a good outcome for you and your employer, so be it. I wouldn't mention that attitude in your next performance review.
As for your wardrobe comment (and it.s J,C. Penney, by the way), this infers to me that you regard anyone with clothing you view as inferior to your own to be as inferior to you. One of the brightest and most capable people I know is a neighbor who is a retired Navy master chief petty officer. He was responsible for the nuclear reactor compartments on a number of submarines and on the aircraft carrier Enterprise. I rarely see him wearing anything other than a khaki shirt and bib overalls. Is he your inferior, too?
By the way, I only buy socks and underwear at J.C. Penney. My suits and jackets come from Men's Wearhouse, but I used to be partial to Sears.
That wouldn't be a new experience. The laughs usually stop when I unsnap my handcuff pouch or hand them the clipboard with the admonition, "Please press firmly; you are making four copies."
First, the "vast majority" of cops that make it to detective are working an assignment that will end when they are rotated back to patrol or promoted to sergeant, which also sends them back to patrol. The assignment are usually from two to five years, depending on a variety of circumstances. Only very large agencies, like LAPD or NYPD, have more or less permanent detective slots, and even then, a promotion will put them back in uniform until they can get back to detectives. Many detectives in the permanent slots like their jobs, and never take promotional exams.
Most cops are "career seekers," at least when they start out. Some decide they would rather do something else, and move on, like with any other line of work. Many work in uniformed assignments until retirement because they choose to. I had several opportunities to go to a detective assignment, and I always turned it down. I liked patrol. There are many reasons that officers tried to get into or stay in detectives, but being smarter than a patrol grunt was not part of the equation.
If you know of detectives, or anyone else, that has built a case against someone they knew to be innocent, I suggest that you give your local FBI office a call. I wouldn't tolerate that, and I don't know of any other law enforcement professional that would. I think your view here is based mainly on TV and movie plots. Those are entertainment, and bear little resemblance to real life.
The only intimidation factor working here is that you know you had better have your ducks in a row when you go up against certain defense attorneys, because they won't miss much and will exploit any weakness in a case. That just means you have to be careful and do good journeyman work. My area of expertise was DUI enforcement, and I was told by more than one defense attorney that they regarded me in the same way on those cases. I had done a lot of them and knew what bases to cover, and how to bring out the facts in my reports and testimony. Had I been the primary case officer on say, a child molest case, they probably wouldn't have been so concerned, because I didn't have the expertise and experience that a more seasoned sex crimes investigator would have.
And you need to remember that when the case is under investigation, the investigator usually doesn't know who they might be going up against at trial. The intimidation factor, if any, just doesn't apply.
I think I said that.
Actually, the training is more targeted at knowing the constraints placed on the police by the constitution and case law. It's like having your tax return prepared by a knowledgeable accountant. The accountant may see perfectly lawful ways of allocating income and reporting deductions that would escape someone less experienced, and reduce your tax bill in so doing. That's tax avoidance as opposed to tax evasion, and the IRS will tell you that you should take every lawful deduction to which you're entitled. Similarly, the police are investigating violations of the laws that protect everyone, and if the police did not take advantage of every lawful investigative opportunity available, they would not be doing the job entrusted to them. If the police ask a question they are not permitted to ask, the response and any evidence that stems from it can be suppressed at trial (the "fruits of the poisonous tree" doctrine).
Rather than me being a "puppet and cannon fodder," I think you are an uninformed grandstander, spouting rhetoric on topics you learned about while watching TV.
Certainly, there are episodes of police misconduct, just as there are with every other line of work I can think of. When public authority figures mess up, it's big news. But fewer than 1% of law enforcement officers are ever accused of serious misconduct, and a fraction of those have those accusations substantiated.
So, the next time a cop asks you a question, feel free to laugh in his face and tell him you don't have to answer. He'll set you straight as to whether you have to answer or not. Either way, you will have positively identified your personality type, which he will file away for future reference. On that note, it is generally good practice not to taunt the alligator until after one has negotiated the swamp.
Nice job dissecting my post. I was hoping to get such a response from you. I was laughing my a** off reading it. Really. I'll sleep better tonight knowing I am now living on another continent and away from "good and honest" investigators like you. I'd hate to live in a place where smarta** cops are roaming the street looking to abuse their powers and build a case against those who disagree with their attitudes and tactics. Even through your arrogant, pseudo-intellectual justifications, you have proven my point and confirmed everything I suspected about you and those of your mindset.
Thank you.
I beg to differ that some cops aren't intimidated by good attorneys. The only time I have ever been charged with anything was a DUI during college. I hired a tough attorney who openly cursed the the officer in court (called him a lying SOB) and made him change his entire testimony. The officer was nearly in tears and the charges were dropped. I guess he just wasn't as tough and "brave" as you or your cop buddies.
Just remember, most of the members of the Nazi SS thought they were "right" too. I'm fairly sure that if either of us is guilty of any real bigotry, it isn't me. If hating the way the system doesn't work and disliking those who arrogantly brag about "cuffing" people somehow makes me a bigot, then I suppose I am. Funny thing is that I don't dislike all cops, just a certain type. I've spent many hours with friends in the LE community and emptied a lot of rounds together on the range.
Now go have that donut and please don't drop any on that Sears suit. You have to look good for the public. You know, those people who are paying your salary... LOL
Last edited by viking407rob; May 24, 2008 at 10:02 am
May 24, 2008 | 6:24 pm
#47
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 754
As for the cops who mistakenly build cases against innocent folks; they should at least lose their jobs, and possibly even face prosecution, IMO. Locking up even one innocent person is too many. If there were even a shred of TRUE accountability in government and law enforcement, these things would happen at a much lesser rate.
May 24, 2008 | 6:25 pm
#48
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 754
Side note, with so many lawyers chiming in -- I have my awesome history degree from UCSB, I have my letters of recommendation from a Judge and a Professor... All I need to do now is write my personal statement; what advice would you offer?
Should it be written with the emphasis on what I can offer the school, why I am a valid candidate, or would they prefer a statement that focuses on why I want to be a lawyer, the passion I have for the subject?.. Personally, the idea of me simply writing about how well qualified I am seems a bit disingenuous -- that's what the letters of recommendation are for...
Thanks!
Should it be written with the emphasis on what I can offer the school, why I am a valid candidate, or would they prefer a statement that focuses on why I want to be a lawyer, the passion I have for the subject?.. Personally, the idea of me simply writing about how well qualified I am seems a bit disingenuous -- that's what the letters of recommendation are for...
Thanks!
May 24, 2008 | 6:43 pm
#49
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Programs: Many
Posts: 2,496
IMO, what irritates a lot of returning US citizens (esp FTers) is that the officers performing the immigration function oftentimes ask questions that have nothing to do with verifying the returning travelers right to enter the USA.
The 'immigration' officers seem to be performing prescreening for those performing the traditional customs function.
With the agencies combined, I can see some of that happening, although I disagree with it, but a lot of it also went on when INS and Customs were separate.
We are used to going to countries where you basically just get stamped in by immigration folks, and customs is separate and is what it is. Moreover, we observe oftentimes in adjacent lines for returning citizens for those countries, that from an immigration perspective, their own citizens just get stamped in also.
Why can't our CBP stamp in its own returning citizens, like I see at most of the other places I go? Why the 3rd degree for returning US Citizens?
The 'immigration' officers seem to be performing prescreening for those performing the traditional customs function.
With the agencies combined, I can see some of that happening, although I disagree with it, but a lot of it also went on when INS and Customs were separate.
We are used to going to countries where you basically just get stamped in by immigration folks, and customs is separate and is what it is. Moreover, we observe oftentimes in adjacent lines for returning citizens for those countries, that from an immigration perspective, their own citizens just get stamped in also.
Why can't our CBP stamp in its own returning citizens, like I see at most of the other places I go? Why the 3rd degree for returning US Citizens?
May 24, 2008 | 9:22 pm
#50
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Georgia and Manila, PH
Programs: NW Gold Elite, DL, HH, Victoria Court Select Member
Posts: 637
If LEO's were really held accountable, there would be fewer of these "mistakes." If most anyone from any other profession made "mistakes" of that magnitude, they'd likely be terminated. Why should cops be any different? Are you guys special? It always tickles the pee out of me whenever a cop is complaining about getting a ticket, being arrested for their own misdeeds or when they are forced to deal with the same things the rest of us deal with. Cops are no better than the rest of us and do not deserve special privileges. How many times have off duty LEOs complained about the TSA debacle, as if they deserve a free pass??? I guess the laws only apply to the rest of us....
Last edited by viking407rob; May 24, 2008 at 9:34 pm
May 24, 2008 | 10:02 pm
#51
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 754
That comparison is like apples and oranges, but to generalize, yes. From my experience doctors and health care workers are far more accountable than your average LEO. Just a few "mistakes" and a health care provider can be sued for malpractice, forced into bankruptcy and/or charged. A "dirty" or incompetent investigator can easily get away with charging (and framing) innocent people for years. This is especially true when officers are protected by a culture where many co-workers are accomplices, or just too afraid to confront the problem. In many cases, even honest cops prefer to look the other way.
Tell me a vocation where this doesn't happen. As for doctors being more accountable, spare me -- doctors can be sued for malpractice, we'll leave it at that. The comparison is valid because both professions deal with situations wherein the outcome can have serious rammifications.
If LEO's were really held accountable, there would be fewer of these "mistakes." If most anyone from any other profession made "mistakes" of that magnitude, they'd likely be terminated. Why should cops be any different? Are you guys special? It always tickles the pee out of me whenever a cop is complaining about getting a ticket, being arrested for their own misdeeds or when they are forced to deal with the same things the rest of us deal with. Cops are no better than the rest of us and do not deserve special privileges. How many times have off duty LEOs complained about the TSA debacle, as if they deserve a free pass??? I guess the laws only apply to the rest of us....
Tell me a vocation where this doesn't happen. As for doctors being more accountable, spare me -- doctors can be sued for malpractice, we'll leave it at that. The comparison is valid because both professions deal with situations wherein the outcome can have serious rammifications.
If LEO's were really held accountable, there would be fewer of these "mistakes." If most anyone from any other profession made "mistakes" of that magnitude, they'd likely be terminated. Why should cops be any different? Are you guys special? It always tickles the pee out of me whenever a cop is complaining about getting a ticket, being arrested for their own misdeeds or when they are forced to deal with the same things the rest of us deal with. Cops are no better than the rest of us and do not deserve special privileges. How many times have off duty LEOs complained about the TSA debacle, as if they deserve a free pass??? I guess the laws only apply to the rest of us....
It doesn't matter, you obviously have a bone to pick when it comes to this subject, something that ellicits an unproportional emotional response.
I've never had a cop expect a free pass from me, and I haven't given them one.
May 24, 2008 | 10:09 pm
#52
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 628
With the agencies combined, I can see some of that happening, although I disagree with it, but a lot of it also went on when INS and Customs were separate.
May 24, 2008 | 10:31 pm
#53
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Programs: Many
Posts: 2,496
I guess what I was getting at was that in their questioning US citizens, at the immigration checkpoint, in a substantially similar way as they do visitors,
they seem to be trying to create the impression, intentionally or otherwise, that they can deny you entry if you dont answer the questions.
They can't, but having said that, they can indeed ensure you get a secondary inspection.
What I'm trying to say I guess is that if they are going to refer X percent, or every nth pax to secondary, or an Ag inspection, then just do it, but dont subject every returning traveler to questions that have nothing to do with their right to re-enter their own country.
they seem to be trying to create the impression, intentionally or otherwise, that they can deny you entry if you dont answer the questions.
They can't, but having said that, they can indeed ensure you get a secondary inspection.
What I'm trying to say I guess is that if they are going to refer X percent, or every nth pax to secondary, or an Ag inspection, then just do it, but dont subject every returning traveler to questions that have nothing to do with their right to re-enter their own country.
May 24, 2008 | 10:32 pm
#54
Join Date: May 2003
Location: GEG
Programs: Motel 6 Club Avoir Le Cafard
Posts: 5,027
I am surprised my anecdote got so much play.
This is not to get involved in a flame war, but I wanted to mention that 1) the detective was from a very well respected LEA that everyone here would recognize; and 2) I am really a lawyer. I have been known to file 42 USC 1983 lawsuits against police officers and police departments when the facts are there.
Also, I am aware of a case here in Los Angeles County in which a homicide suspect asked to speak with then-President Bill Clinton (who was then licensed to practice law). Everything the suspect said thereafter was thrown out, the court holding that the suspect had invoked the right to counsel.
This is not to get involved in a flame war, but I wanted to mention that 1) the detective was from a very well respected LEA that everyone here would recognize; and 2) I am really a lawyer. I have been known to file 42 USC 1983 lawsuits against police officers and police departments when the facts are there.
Also, I am aware of a case here in Los Angeles County in which a homicide suspect asked to speak with then-President Bill Clinton (who was then licensed to practice law). Everything the suspect said thereafter was thrown out, the court holding that the suspect had invoked the right to counsel.
May 25, 2008 | 9:47 am
#55
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 628
What I'm trying to say I guess is that if they are going to refer X percent, or every nth pax to secondary, or an Ag inspection, then just do it, but dont subject every returning traveler to questions that have nothing to do with their right to re-enter their own country.
Jun 2, 2008 | 12:50 am
#56
Join Date: Apr 2005
Programs: Delta SkyMiles
Posts: 654
Nice job dissecting my post. I was hoping to get such a response from you. I was laughing my a** off reading it. Really. I'll sleep better tonight knowing I am now living on another continent and away from "good and honest" investigators like you. I'd hate to live in a place where smarta** cops are roaming the street looking to abuse their powers and build a case against those who disagree with their attitudes and tactics. Even through your arrogant, pseudo-intellectual justifications, you have proven my point and confirmed everything I suspected about you and those of your mindset.
I beg to differ that some cops aren't intimidated by good attorneys. The only time I have ever been charged with anything was a DUI during college. I hired a tough attorney who openly cursed the the officer in court (called him a lying SOB) and made him change his entire testimony. The officer was nearly in tears and the charges were dropped. I guess he just wasn't as tough and "brave" as you or your cop buddies.
Nice, conveniently unverifiable story, but no sale. And I note that you didn't address the issue of your conduct that got you there in the first place. I suppose you were randomly plucked from the highway for harassment at the whim of the officer, while cold sober and en route to teach your Sunday School class?
I'm fairly sure that if either of us is guilty of any real bigotry, it isn't me. If hating the way the system doesn't work and disliking those who arrogantly brag about "cuffing" people somehow makes me a bigot, then I suppose I am. Funny thing is that I don't dislike all cops, just a certain type. I've spent many hours with friends in the LE community and emptied a lot of rounds together on the range.
I won't say that I'll stay out of this argument from this point, because that seems to bring out the people that cast stones with no fear of anyone throwing them back. But I will apologize to the moderators for letting the thread get sidetracked, and that it be allowed to die here. I further recommend that we agree that you think I'm a pseudo-intellectual Nazi with a bad wardrobe, that I think you're a clueless, self-righteous twerp, and we leave it at that.
Jun 2, 2008 | 1:20 am
#57
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
Jun 2, 2008 | 7:21 pm
#59
Join Date: Apr 2005
Programs: Delta SkyMiles
Posts: 654