Is that a Drill Sergeant or a Police Officer? Belligerent Cop Loses it On Man for Knowing His Rights

originally posted by: defcon5
I did answer it.

The officer would have been within his legal rights to not only open the door, but to pull him out of the car and arrest him. And BTW the law's been like that for a LONG time, long before 911 or even 2000, there is nothing new about this stuff.

I rather interpreted your answer as something of a non sequitur in that you didn't directly answer my question, but rather diverted the focus onto a different avenue.

originally posted by: defcon5
Driving has been considered a “privilege” for as long as I have been alive, and if you sum up all the stuff I wrote in my original post it equates too...“driving is a privilege not a right”... Which is what the officer explained to him more than once.

If that's how you interpret "explaining", I sure hope anyone you are charged with teaching in the future has a thicker skin than I.

Also, what do you make of Bundy's post above mine, along with a few others who contend that it is a right to travel, as long as it's not being done for commercial purposes?

Thanks for your candor so far.

originally posted by: Bedlam
Actually there's a lot of case law about that, and you ARE being interrogated at a Terry stop. Miranda still applies, but as a Terry is considered 'consensual', the cops are not required to inform you of your MIranda rights.

The evidence must have been obtained while the suspect was in custody. This limitation follows from the fact that Miranda's purpose is to protect suspects from the compulsion inherent in the police dominated atmosphere attendant to arrest. Custody means either that the suspect was under arrest or that his freedom of movement was restrained to an extent "associated with a formal arrest".[41] A formal arrest occurs when an officer, with the intent to make an arrest, takes a person into custody by the use of physical force or the person submits to the control of an officer who has indicated his intention to arrest the person. Telling a person he is "under arrest" is sufficient to satisfy this requirement even though the person may not be otherwise physically restrained.[42] Absent a formal arrest, the issue is whether a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have believed that he was under "full custodial" arrest.[43] Applying this objective test, the Court has held Miranda does not apply to roadside questioning of a stopped motorist or to questioning of a person briefly detained on the street—a Terry stop.[44] Even though neither the motorist nor the pedestrian is free to leave, this interference with the freedom of action is not considered actual arrest or its functional equivalent for purposes of the Fifth Amendment.[45] The court has similarly held that a person who voluntarily comes to the police station for purposes of questioning is not in custody and thus not entitled to Miranda warnings particularly when the police advise the suspect that he is not under arrest and free to leave.[46]

originally posted by: Bedlam
Houston v Hill. No. Unless the "verbal resistance" rises to the level of "fighting words". Asking the officer what is being done and why (in H v H, the comment was "Why don't you pick on someone your own size?") cannot be construed as resistance or obstruction, as it overly restricts the first amendment rights of the detainee.

C. For the purposes of this section, "passive resistance" means a nonviolent physical act or failure to act that is intended to impede, hinder or delay the effecting of an arrest.

Also... (at least in my state)

Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any [law enforcement or probation] officer or other person legally authorized to execute process . . . In the law execution of a legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

Another example that's not “fighting words”, and applies to this instance.

Similarly, words alone can support a resisting charge when the defendant gives a police officer a false name during his arrest, because such an act is deemed to hinder the officer’s performance of his arrest duties. Caines v. State, 500 So. 2d 728, 729 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Legnosky, 27 So. 3d at 797.

a reply to: ExquisitExamplE
Police don't have to explain the law to you... They are not even required to tell you the truth, and often don't when it suits their investigation.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Bedlam


You're out of line champ. The superiority complex is really the people who think they are actually EQUAL to a police officer. lol. That's rich.

You are a shiny example of everything I've come to expect from a LEO.

Oh and p.s Spare me your pseudo psychology. You know squat.

Officers who develop inappropriate patrol styles.

Individuals who fit this profile combine a
dominant command presence with a heavy-handed
policing style; they are particularly sensitive to
challenge and provocation. They use force to show
they are in charge; as their beliefs about how
police work is conducted become more rigid, this
behavior becomes the norm.

In contrast to the chronic risk group, the
behavior of officers in this group is acquired on
the job and can be changed. The longer the
patterns continue, however, the more difficult
they are to change. As the officers become
invested in police power and control, they see
little reason to change.

Oddly enough, there are thousands of studies on police psychology. Heck, there are entire publications dedicated to it. I can find cite after cite.

originally posted by: defcon5
a reply to: ExquisitExamplE
Police don't have to explain the law to you... They are not even required to tell you the truth, and often don't when it suits their investigation.

True...do you see this as laudable, exemplary, or somehow commendable, or do you see it as a sort of failure of our judicial system?

a reply to: defcon5

I didn't ask if the police are required to explain the law to you, or if they are required to tell the truth.

I asked if you think the officer (although this should be patently obvious, I'm referring to the one who opened the driver's door and began yelling at him) conducted himself in an appropriate fashion in this instance.

originally posted by: defcon5
This guy is a halfwit who doesn't understand the law, nor his rights...
2) The 5th amendment applies to self incrimination, and in the case of Miranda rights applies ONLY to official police interrogation, not a “terry stop” or traffic stop. If you're not sure if you are being interrogated, a reliable indicator is if you find yourself in a little room at the police station sitting across a table from a detective....THENNN, you just might be being interrogated, and only THENNN does Miranda apply to you.

Lemme guess, you got this from movies and tv. I've been questioned by police over criminal matters, there was no small room with a detective smoking a cigarette shining a bright light on you. Also, there were NO Miranda rights read. I kept this in my mind. I never said anything to them. "I want to go to jail" was the only phrase I said and I had to say it several times over the course of an hour or more before I got to go there.

I was read no rights, and I was told by my lawyer later on that they don't have to read you your rights. They can just say they did.

A couple of days later, I picked up a newspaper (after paying bail) to read a nice long article about all the things I said to police. Of course all of it was very incriminating, and zero of it was true. Who happened to be the writer for the local newspaper who handles the criminal stories? None other than the chief of police.

Our justice system at its finest.

originally posted by: defcon5
a reply to: ExquisitExamplE
Police don't have to explain the law to you... They are not even required to tell you the truth, and often don't when it suits their investigation.

Hell, they aren't even required to know it. How can they explain what they themselves have zero clue about?

originally posted by: FlySolo
You're out of line champ. The superiority complex is really the people who think they are actually EQUAL to a police officer. lol. That's rich.

When speaking of superiority complexes, a good rule of thumb I've found is that when people begin using pet diminutives, things like "champ" or "chief", to address people with whom they have disagreements with, it's typically a good indicator that they may have one.

Additionally, I find it unfortunate that you don't value yourself enough as an individual to put yourself on an equal level with a police officer as a human being. Why abrogate your own self-worth?

a reply to: Bedlam

they are particularly sensitive to
challenge and provocation

I love to debate. I find people who challenge me very rewarding and it keeps my intellect on its feet

They use force to show
they are in charge; as their beliefs about how
police work is conducted become more rigid

Sounds like alpha male behavior. But the alpha males doesn't always use physical force, but strong mental tenacity.

You are a shiny example of everything I've come to expect from a LEO.

Thanks. I'll take that one as a compliment.

a reply to: ExquisitExamplE

Additionally, I find it unfortunate that you don't value yourself enough as an individual to put yourself on an equal level with a police officer as a human being. Why abrogate your own self-worth?

it's called respect. And to get respect, you have to give it. When a cop drops the act and talks to YOU as a regular person, then you have achieved the ultimate balance, while sitting .

And yes, good observation on the 'champ' thing. It's very effective.

originally posted by: defcon5

Telling a person he is "under arrest" is sufficient to satisfy this requirement even though the person may not be otherwise physically restrained.[42]

Hm. I partially concede this point, with the following - if the motorist has not "been detained" yet (Berkemer deals with the question of - at what point does a traffic stop become an arrest, if the cop doesn't say 'you're under arrest', and it's very subjective).

But if he's NOT under arrest, then it's a bone stock Terry stop, traffic version. In which case, Supreme Court justice Byron White's adage is true - you can ask all you like. The subject is under no compulsion to answer. Hiibel would amend that to - unless the state has a valid stop and identify statute, in which case all the cop can force from you is your pedigree info.

Of course, since the guy's conducting a licensed activity, namely driving, they can also ask for all the usual drivers license stuff. I never disputed that.

If it IS an arrest, then Miranda applies and the cop can't keep asking without a lawyer present.

originally posted by: Bedlam

C. For the purposes of this section, "passive resistance" means a nonviolent physical act or failure to act that is intended to impede, hinder or delay the effecting of an arrest

I would expect 'physical act' does not encompass speech:

Held:

1. A municipal ordinance that makes it unlawful to interrupt a police officer in the performance of his duty is substantially overbroad and therefore invalid on its face under the First Amendment. The ordinance in question criminalizes a substantial amount of, and is susceptible of regular application to, constitutionally protected speech, and accords the police unconstitutional enforcement discretion, as is demonstrated by evidence indicating that, although the ordinance's plain language is violated scores of times daily, only those individuals chosen by police in their unguided discretion are arrested. Appellant's argument that the ordinance is not substantially overbroad because it does not inhibit the exposition of ideas, but simply bans unprotected "core criminal conduct," is not persuasive. Since the ordinance's language making it unlawful to "assault" or "strike" a police officer is expressly pre-empted by the State Penal Code, its enforceable portion prohibits verbal interruptions of police and thereby deals with speech rather than with core criminal conduct. Moreover, although speech might be prohibited if it consists of "fighting words" that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace, the ordinance in question is not limited to such expressions but broadly applies to speech that "in any manner . . . interrupt[s] any policeman" and thereby impermissibly infringes the constitutionally protected freedom of individuals verbally [482 U.S. 451, 452] to oppose or challenge police action. Appellant's contention that the ordinance's sweeping nature is both inevitable and essential to maintain public order is also without merit, since the ordinance is not narrowly tailored to prohibit only disorderly conduct or fighting words, but impermissibly provides police with unfettered discretion to arrest individuals for words or conduct that are simply annoying or offensive. Pp. 458-467.

This seems to go directly to the statement you cited - the definition of "impeding an officer" cannot be so overbroad as to infringe the first amendment, or it's invalid. In HvH, Houston PD attempted to charge with obstruction for speaking to the officer. It was, properly, slapped down. You can't arrest someone for being verbally annoying.

Similarly, words alone can support a resisting charge when the defendant gives a police officer a false name during his arrest, because such an act is deemed to hinder the officer’s performance of his arrest duties. Caines v. State, 500 So. 2d 728, 729 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Legnosky, 27 So. 3d at 797.

Lying to an officer is a different thing qualitatively than speaking to one at a traffic stop.

Lets nutshell all these PC topics down into the real problem...

I've known a lot of cops in RL, and the fact is that most (not all, but most) of them are self-righteous pricks that became cops because they're bullies, and enjoy having power over people. There is no such thing as a “good” or “bad” cop, they are all gray, and if you piss them off they will go “bad” cop on you in a heartbeat.

Now part of the problem here is the definition of a “bad” cop.
To the public, its not the same as it is to the law. According to the law a police officer does not have to be polite, respectful, truthful, or honorable, he ONLY has to be legally in the right. As a matter of fact, they are taught how to push peoples buttons to get a reaction, they are taught to lie to get to the truth (they can even give you BS fake legal advise while they are arresting you), and they are taught how to keep the upper hand in a situation by showing their power, authority, and use intimidation against you. THEY'RE TAUGHT THIS BY THE STATE... and when they do these things, the state is NOT going to punish them for it because they aren't breaking any laws in doing so.

Its only in the mind of the common public that a police officer is to be the pinnacle of morality, and have some moral code of truth, honor, and justice that they follow.

That gap is what leads to all these threads on the topic, and all the misunderstandings between the public and the police. As my fellow moderator, and police officer, Semper has said on here before, its not his job to “protect and serve” its to “enforce the law”.

To pointedly answer the question above about if I agree with the officer...
I would not because I am not a cop, and I was raised to treat people with respect. However, legally, there was nothing wrong with what he did, and he won't get in any trouble over it unless it gets a lot of bad press and makes the department look bad. Then he might get a slap on the wrist, and time off with pay. The slap, and the time off, is the states way of appeasing the public, and the cop knows this as well, and takes a nice paid vacation. The state can't discipline him because they taught him to act that way to begin with...

originally posted by: Bundy
Lemme guess, you got this from movies and tv. I've been questioned by police over criminal matters, there was no small room with a detective smoking a cigarette shining a bright light on you.

If you were formally questioned you have to be arrested, and in custody first. Yes, when you are formally interrogated they put you in a room were they audio, and video tape you.

originally posted by: Bundy
Also, there were NO Miranda rights read.

When you are arrested in most places today you are read your miranda via taped closed circuit TV in a holding cell. Maybe you slept through it, or maybe you were not in an instance where miranda applied to you.

a reply to: defcon5

Well, that was refreshingly candid. I can't say I disagree with any of what you wrote, and thanks for getting around to my question.

originally posted by: defcon5
Lets nutshell all these PC topics down into the real problem...


As a matter of fact, they are taught how to push peoples buttons to get a reaction, they are taught to lie to get to the truth (they can even give you BS fake legal advise while they are arresting you), and they are taught how to keep the upper hand in a situation by showing their power, authority, and use intimidation against you. THEY'RE TAUGHT THIS BY THE STATE... and when they do these things, the state is NOT going to punish them for it because they aren't breaking any laws in doing so.

That gap is what leads to all these threads on the topic, and all the misunderstandings between the public and the police.
The state can't discipline him because they taught him to act that way to begin with...

Nice summary...but I would take it a step further.

When it becomes especially egregious, and leads to all sorts of major friction, distrust and dislike is when the law is applied unequally to police because police. That's because they are allowed to investigate themselves (ha) and the only other oversight is the prosecuting attorney, whose success depends on police cooperation and whose secondary income depends on police unions.

That's two bad conflicts of interest and the only thing that stands between the police and the citizenry, unless the FBI can levy a corruption charge or something. It's why you see some areas (Bakersfield is one) where the cops can literally get away with murder, because the local prosecutor's office has NEVER upheld ANY action against a cop.

Given your first assessment is true, and I'd have to agree with you, when such people are essentially told "gloves off, you can do anything you like and we will help you get away with it", it amplifies such behavior to the point that I consider most cops to be dangerous and unpredictable, and not in a good way.

The only way, IMHO, to build respect and trust is to have a non-police oversight commission whose core mission is to put cops off the force or in prison, and incentivize the commission to do their jobs, maybe with a program that confiscates the convicted officer's personal belongings or assets in a sort of reverse asset forfeiture and gives it to the commission as bonus money. Sort of like JCAHO for police.

One more thing I should add to my little “rant” above.
While the law is just a passing fancy, or a hobby to most of us, these guys deal with it on a real life, professional basis, ALL DAY, EVERY DAY. Some of them have more courtroom time and practical experience than some of your best attorneys, and they KNOW criminal law backwards and forwards. All they deal with is criminal law, and only very specific areas of it, where most lawyers are less specialized. I've even seen them outmaneuver professional attorneys. YOU ARE NOT, repeat, NOT, going to win against them in a verbal debate on the street. In most of these videos where the guy gets off, its either because the cop was overstepping to begin with and decided not to push it, or because it just wasn't worth the time, paperwork, or bad press. If they want you, they'll have you, and no amount of legalize BS at the scene is going to stop them from getting you. The law is written to give them an excuse to arrest you for just about anything based solely on their opinion.

a reply to: smithjustinb

Regardless of your belief or desire, driving is in fact a privilege and not a right. Period, there is no discussion about it.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: BelowLowAnnouncement

He was asking a question. He was asking if he was being detained, they wouldn't answer his question with a straight answer (ask yourself why).

He answered, "you are not free to go right now". I think it's pretty straight forward. Not going to sit on the side of the road and argue semantics about 'detained' and "not free to go" It's a road check. You are not allowed to leave a road check until they say you can.

He asked if he was being detained, not if he was free to go. It's clear in their response they are avoiding the question directly and only implying it to give themselves leeway should a complaint be made.

Being aggressive won't change anything either except maybe finding your nose pressed against the pavement.

I saw no aggression from the driver.

The relevance is I DID break the law, didn't give the cop any smack talk and he STILL let me 1/2 off. More like 3/4 off because speeding would have went against my points. Point is, be cool and not a dink.

I'm a firm believer that a cop's mood shouldn't affect any form of justice or punishment.

Had the driver even behaved remotely like the cop in this footage he would have been arrested, that is telling enough in itself to see that this situation is very wrong.

We will have to respectfully agree to disagree on the situation.

a reply to: Bedlam
Laws are lobbied in by the rich and special interest groups. Many of those laws are unjust laws. When an officer has to enforce an unjust law, the citizen takes it out on the officer. The fact is though that the officer didn't write the law, he only is there to enforce it. Also the whole legal system has become not only a “for profit” scheme for many states, but also its rigged so only the rich can win to begin with (and only at great expense). Essentially, if you're rich and you can “pay off” the state, legally, through paying out for lawyers (who become judges and politicians), court fees, fines, etc... Money can get you out of jail as all the state is interested in anymore is making money off law enforcement anyway, certainly not justice. If they can get their money out of you, and not have to pay to put you behind bars, they're all for it.