I think you're arguing over terminology. Yes, the term "presumption of innocence" is a legal term and means what you say it does. But I think polonius means to counter the repeated claims by law dang that people somehow have to be able to prove their innocence. That's not true either in court or in the street.

There is no circumstance where I have the obligation to demonstrate my innocence. And if I'm in a situation where an LEO is asking me to do so, I believe most defense lawyers would advise that saying anything is more likely to get me into trouble than help. (Of course, that's only true for testimonial responses. If an evidentiary response would help, such as showed the bottle in the example above or showing a receipt in a case where it was suspected something was stolen, it's hard to see the harm in doing that.) LEOs should know this.

I haven't seen any claims like that from law dawg. Quite the contrary. He has been quite clear as to the standard that applies for a LEO to question, detain or arrest. It has nothing to do with "proving," anything but, rather, goes to the threshold that must be shown by the LEO before these can be done.

Of course there is, at least if you don't want to go to jail and wait for an arraignment. If a LEO decides he has sufficient cause to arrest you, that arrest is completely legal (and, of course, constitutional). You may, however, try to persuade the LEO that he is misconstruing the circumstances. If you succeed, you won't be arrested.

Generally, that's correct. Everything depends on the circumstances, however.

All responses are testimonial, as in, "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

I don't know what you mean by "evidentiary" response. "Officer, I was in church during that time -- ask my pastor," is not going to get you into trouble if, in fact, you were in church.

I think the bottom line is that if you're doing something illegal (e.g. undeclared cash > 10K) you are running a risk of a significant PIA. Sounds like the case cited turned out reasonably fair, but look at the time, stress, and expense it took.

I think you'd be ill advised to carry illegal items (e.g. large sums of undeclared cash (or declared via postal mail)) no matter what you think your constitutional rights are.

That right there is exactly where there is deeply troubling beliefs. Just because a LEO "decides" that he has sufficient cause for arrest by no means demonstrates that in fact there was sufficient cause. Plaintiffs win damages every day for cases in which LEOs "decided" they had cause for arrest but they didn't. The fact that you and others (particular as some of them in fact appear to be LEOs) don't know that just increases people's general anxiety about law enforcement.

He referred to my example, in which a cop demanded that I show him the label of the dark green bottle I was drinking from on a public street.

So again, I presume you will be firing off another angry letter to your congressperson today, demanding that s/he implement change to the law so that law abiding citizens no longer run the risk of being hassled on the street for no good reason by the police? I mean, apparently you believe that's how it works, so you must be furious about it.

(emphasis mine)

There is NOTHING illegal about not declaring cash > $10000 (or its equivalent in other currency formats [foreign currency or cash equivalent items]) unless one is traveling across an international border.

Sorry if I was unclear, but that, of course, is exactly what I was referring to.

That's exactly what I said:

LEOs have to meet the appropriate standard for questioning, arrest and detention.

You're talking about an instance in which a LEO hasn't met the standard. Nowhere have I said that LEOs have unfettered discretion. I have only been talking about law, not whether or nor LEOs always comply with the law.

If explaining the law increases people's anxiety, then so be it. I don't think ignorance is preferable to knowledge. Generally, I don't have anxiety about law enforcement. I am also white, middle-aged and educated. I am aware that my experience of law enforcement is probably different than many people who are of color, young and uneducated.

He's allowed to ask anything he wants. You don't have to answer, but that will be a factor the LEO considers when he decides whether he has sufficient reasonable suspicion or probable cause to go further. TSOs, on the other hand, may not ask you anything, and your refusal to answer any of their questions is insufficient grounds for them to do anything at all, including denial of access to the sterile area.

I once made a complaint to a TSA supervisor about a TSO who tried to require that I put my bags through the scanner while there was a line to get through the WTMD, and then called for a retaliatory check of my bag AND computer once I got through. The supervisor asked for my boarding pass and ID. I said, "There's no reason for you to see either." He said, "In order to make a complaint we have to see them." I said, "You're not going to see them and if you don't address my complaint, I'll make a point of complaining about you." He said, "It's just procedure. We're required to." I said, "I'm unconcerned with your procedure and I don't trust your agency. If you can articulate a reason beyond, 'it's our procedure,' why giving you my ID and boarding pass makes any kind of sense to me, I will. Otherwise, no." He said, "Okay, I don't need them."

EXACTLY what you said was:

A LEO DECIDING he has sufficient cause and a LEO actually having sufficient cause are NOT necessarily the same thing, and nothing in your statement made any reference to objective standards for anything. Your statement indicated that a subjective decision, based on belief alone, was enough to make the arrest legal. But perhaps what you meant and what you said were two different things.

Oh, for crying out loud. And you accuse me of playing semantics?

If a LEO decides he has sufficient cause, he'll arrest you. If he actually had sufficient cause, that arrest will be legal and constitutional.

Okay?

We're discussing the law here. Semantics is everything.

thanks for the clarification.

Straw man. I have never claimed that people have to prove their innocence.

Driver's license? Insurance? Those come to mind readily. You have to prove you're in compliance with the law.

The LEO is the person on the street that makes the call. He's the judge of RS/PC, etc. Who else can do so? Make that call?

Hell, even judges differ on certain cases as to whether or not cause was met. And yes, people win cases against LEOs. They lose them too.

I don't understand this at all.

I can make contact with any citizen at any time. No cause needed.

"How are you doing today?"

I use that one every day. I don't need cause to talk to people. I can start talking to them about anything. If I see something that piques my interest, I can follow that line of questioning if some articulable fact(s) exist which elevate the required suspicion. And so on, and so on until either PC is met or the person is cut loose.

Most times, though, contact with a person = nothing at all.

That's because there is no objective standard for RS, PC, etc. These are not measurable concepts. It comes down to whether:
1) a LEO believes he/she has met cause and,
2) a judge agrees with him/her

You can't pull out a ruler and measure how much you have. It's a matter of perception.