Police caught on tape threatening to destroy and invent evidence

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
Yes, but wouldn't that officer have to have probable cause (open container, alcohol on breath, weaving, glassy-eyed, slurred speach) in order to give you that test? (i.e. were committing a crime, in this case DUI or DWI) That would certainly fall within the coditions you listed earlier.

But you still waive the right to refuse, which is why you face additional charges and civil penalties for refusing to comply. You basically just broke a contract with the state as well as committing a crime. The police will still arrest you for driving under the influence, even though they cannot say you were actually under the influence of alcohol at the scene.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
I think we're getting caught up in semantics.

Unfortunately that is what law is now-a-days, it’s a semantics game. Just ask President Clinton…

This stuff ain't nothing new, as I'm sure you are all aware. I remember as a kid we'd go drinking in parks and the like (Ah, memories), and the police always got called by residents. I remember getting threatened with arrest on many occasions. "Move on or we'll charge you with vandalism". Not quite as serious, but just as annoying when your 16.

Originally posted by defcon5
But you still waive the right to refuse, which is why you face additional charges and civil penalties for refusing to comply. You basically just broke a contract with the state as well as committing a crime. The police will still arrest you for driving under the influence, even though they cannot say you were actually under the influence of alcohol at the scene.

I understand your point. But, what I am humbly trying to suggest is that you never truly give up your right to refuse. What the State is doing is basically giving you an ultimatum; take the test or face penalties and charges if you don't. You even state that while they can arrest you, they can't say that you were actually under the influence. (sounds like a lawyers paradise in thos court cases I wonder how many get dropped or get reduced charges)

But, going back to what you said earlier, wouldn't the officer have to have probable cause to pull you over with the suspicion of being a DUI/DWI? In that case, you've already incriminated yourself and, more likely, thrown up all over yourself.

Everyone here should totally disregard what Defcon says. he is just plain wrong. The ' right to remain silent ' starts the MOMENT that any cop tries to question you about ANYTHING at ANYTIME !! that IS THE LAW. The Florida law does NOT say anything about the citizen being required to answer anything. Read it again; it says the officer may question the citizen; it is understood that the citizen does NOT have to give up ANY Constitutional rights whatsoever, and to read that into that statute is totally bogus. It is not there.

There is NOWHERE in ANY state law that overrides the Federal laws, period. You may remain silent when any cops asks you anything whatsoever, and Defcon CANNOT find anything in any law book to refute that. Also, Defcon has the nerve to say that the law is up to the driver and the cop and the judge to interpret!! Thats insane!!

The LAW is up to the JUDGE to interpret, got it? NOT the cops , not the driver, just the judge. He alone decides matters of law. The judge decides if the cop had ' probable cause ', and thats that. If the cop was mistaken, then the charges are thrown out. NOWHERE in any lawbook does it say anything different than what I just stated. Defcon quoted a law that is plain and clear; cops may stop and ask for identity, and may TRY to question the citizen; NOWHERE does the law state or imply that the driver or citizen is required to speak to any cop, ever.

That would be giving up your rights. Defcon seems to think that we have no Constitutional rights unles we are arrested!! Where does the law say that? Nowhere, thats where!! Your Constitutional Rights are INHERENT for every citizen. You have them before or during or after anything that some cop says. You can IGNORE any cop. There is NO LAW that says that we MUST answer questions, and the Florida law does not either; it says the cops may ask, but we may also REFUSE, totally legally.

Show us a law, defcon, that states that citizens must answer cops or face punishment. Please. You cannot because it does not exist. It would be illegal to enforce such a law. I do not know where Defcon got his law education, but it was not from attorneys and not from the lawbooks, thats for sure. Maybe from some kids who heard that someone else heard that....see how nonsense starts? By reading things into sentences that are NOT there, and by quoting laws without an understanding of the statutes and what they mean in reality.

Defcon has given totally false advice, read things into the law that do not exist, and assumed things not in evidence. He cannot show us ONE example of a citizen EVER being tried or convicted for refusing to answer a cop, it has never happened and it cannot happen under the law. It is not possible as NO LAW exists that demands that we talk to cops, ever. Never.

Just because some cop can ask, does not mean that we must answer, we do not have to, legally. Defcon should be ignored as he has proven to be unreliable in his advice and his reading of plain and clear laws that say ONLY that a cop may TRY and ask questions...nowhere does it say we must answer or respond. No law. No way. No how. Defcon is dead wrong. The proof lies in the fact that he cannot post one law here that says we must answer. All the laws say we do NOT have to, thats a right and the state cannot take that right away, get it now? I hope so; spreading false meanings to laws helps no one and only causes more people to become misinformed.

You NEVER have to answer ANY question posed by a cop, NEVER. That is the truth and you can take that to the bank. Prove me wrong Defcon or admit you are over your head in trying to interpret the law.

Originally posted by Dr Love
1+1+1+1=bait job IMO.

Yeah, and so what? If the cop made an effort to do his job the way he was supposed to, he wouldn't have ended up on the 'hook'.

A cop parks on the side of the road, powers up his radar gun, and waits for you to break the law. How is that any different than the kid having a camera rolling in his car. The bottom line is that the kid has rights, and he, unlike you, chooses to exercise them. Maybe forcing immoral and unethical cops to answer for their actions is a hobby for this kid. Again, so what? That's a good thing in my opinion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't ALL police cruisers marked or unmarked fitted with cameras, and the officers are mic'd?

I mean the dozens of police brutality videos on you-tube and goggle, are mostly all from the police cruisers camer, and officers mic.

They do have the IA, and I believe they would've handled this case regarless of whether or not the kid had a camera, because this officers behavior was criminal.

I dunno, I almost think since this kid got paid once before for goading a drunk off duty cop into slugging him once before. He probably took some of that money, bought some of this equipment, scouted the speed traps, and pressed his luck just a little. I mean you can hear a tone of sarcasm in the kids voice, like he was trying the officers patience just a little, at least imo.

Who know's what he did, before the recording, maybe he did swerve a bit as he passed the patrol car. For all we know this kid coulda been out there 'fishing' for another law suit.

I'm not saying this justifies the cops behavior at all. But I question the kids motives here, for some reason his behavior and all the whole scene in fact, just doesn't sit right with me.

Originally posted by eyewitness86
The LAW is up to the JUDGE to interpret, got it? NOT the cops , not the driver, just the judge. He alone decides matters of law. The judge decides if the cop had ' probable cause ', and thats that. If the cop was mistaken, then the charges are thrown out. NOWHERE in any lawbook does it say anything different than what I just stated. Defcon quoted a law that is plain and clear; cops may stop and ask for identity, and may TRY to question the citizen; NOWHERE does the law state or imply that the driver or citizen is required to speak to any cop, ever.

No what I am saying is that laws are open to interpretation, and those interpretations change from time to time. As I said before law is very much a word game, and that is why good lawyers can find loop holes in them so well.

So my point was read it for yourself and come to your own conclusion based on what it says.

Originally posted by eyewitness86
Everyone here should totally disregard what Defcon says. he is just plain wrong. The ' right to remain silent ' starts the MOMENT that any cop tries to question you about ANYTHING at ANYTIME !! that IS THE LAW. The Florida law does NOT say anything about the citizen being required to answer anything. Read it again; it says the officer may question the citizen; it is understood that the citizen does NOT have to give up ANY Constitutional rights whatsoever, and to read that into that statute is totally bogus. It is not there.

A police officer can certainly ask you questions and its not unreasonable to ask you about travel plans:

Stop and Frisk
The New York test identifies four levels of police intrusion on an escalating scale. At the first, least intrusive level, an officer may request information from a civilian about his or her identity, reason for being at a particular location, or travel plans, where the request is "supported by an objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality."37 For example, in De Bour, the officers approached De Bour after midnight, in an area with a high incidence of narcotics trafficking, after De Bour had crossed the street apparently to avoid walking past the uniformed officers; the officers asked DeBour his identity and reason for being in the neighborhood.38 The Court of Appeals held that the circumstances under which the initial inquiry took place "were sufficient to arouse the officers' interest" such that the minimal intrusion of nonthreatening questioning was permissible.39 In reaching this result, the Court of Appeals emphasized that the encounter was brief, of a limited nature (circumscribed questioning), and was neither degrading nor humiliating to the person approached.40

The second De Bour level is referred to as the "common law right of inquiry." Under the "common law right," an officer may approach and closely question a civilian to the extent necessary to gain explanatory information beyond identity and travel plans. Still, however, the officer may not detain the civilian; the individual always remains free to leave.41 This second level of intrusion -- which falls short of a Fourth Amendment "seizure" (a "stop") sufficient to implicate Terry -- requires a founded suspicion that "criminal activity is afoot."42 The difference between the De Bour tiers is "itself subtle" and rests upon the content and number of questions, and the "degree to which the language and nature of the questions transform the encounter from a merely unsettling one" under De Bour's first level, "to an intimidating one" under its second.43

Now its true that you don’t have to answer them:

1. Refusal to Answer Questions, or to Give Identity
The United States Supreme Court has held that "[a citizen] may not be detained even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds for doing so; and his refusal to listen or answer does not, without more, furnish those grounds."59 Similarly, the refusal to identify oneself will not alone give rise to "reasonable suspicion."60
New York courts, likewise, have held that, while police officers may pose nonthreatening questions seeking basic information -- e.g., regarding identity, address or destination -- when they have an objective, credible reason to do so, civilians are not required to answer or to provide proof of identity.61 Although some verbal responses to questions at this level can provide a basis for greater intrusion, such as obviously false answers, officers may not effect a more intimidating level-two "common law" inquiry, nor a level-three "stop," based solely upon a civilian's refusal to answer or failure to provide identification.62
2. Avoidance of Police/ Nervous Reaction Upon Questioning
The United States Supreme Court has likewise held that a citizen who does not wish to answer police questions may disregard the officer's questions and walk away.63 Refusal to answer an officer's questions, standing alone, does not satisfy the constitutional "reasonable suspicion" test.64
Under governing New York law, an individual has a constitutional right to refuse to respond to questions posed by a police officer, may remain silent, and may even walk away without fearing an arrest or detention by the officer.65 "Flight alone . . . or in conjunction with equivocal circumstances that might justify a police request for information is insufficient to justify pursuit because an individual has a right ‘to be let alone' and refuse to respond to police inquiry."66
Finally, "in light of the recognized ‘unsettling' aspect of a police-initiated inquiry of citizens," some New York courts have held that nervous reaction to nonthreatening questioning is not sufficient to authorize a greater intrusion.67

But if you honestly think they are going to let you walk away, or not push the matter further when you refuse to answer, your not living in the real world with the rest of us.

I'm wondering if we'll ever see the video from the cops cruiser? The 20 year olds mic was in his car the entire time and you can't hear either of them that good unless you blast your speakers.

By law, all cop cruisers are fitted with cameras now and the cops wear their mics. You'd hear more of the conversation loud and clear.

Another thing. I agree the kid was sounding like a smartass only after the cop starts being more of a jerk though, but certain people in this thread keep forgetting to mention that the first person you hear is the cop who clearly already had an attitude before the driver ever says a word.

I still say that even if the driver was trying to bait some cops that he did nothing wrong. He went out and got evidence of big problem in a small town. Every small town I've ever been to has these types of cops. It's really bad throughout eastern Indiana where my ex girlfriend lives.

[edit on 11-9-2007 by nightmare_david]

Ah, I knew I would find it eventually…
And here is where they get you if you refuse to talk:

Although it was well established that an officer could ask a suspect to identify himself in the course of a Terry stop, prior to Hiibel it had been an open question whether the suspect could be arrested and prosecuted for refusal to answer.[3] Several states have “stop-and-identify” laws that explicitly require a person detained under the conditions of Terry to identify himself to a peace officer. Before Hiibel, authority on this issue was split among the federal circuit courts of appeal,[4] and the U.S. Supreme Court twice expressly refused to address the question.[5] In Hiibel, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in a 5-4 decision, that a Nevada “stop-and-identify” law did not violate the United States Constitution. The Court's opinion implied that a person was not required to produce written identification, but could satisfy the requirement merely by stating his or her name. Some “stop-and-identify” laws do not require that a person detained identify himself, but allow refusal to do so to be considered along with other factors in determining whether there is probable cause to arrest.

So in refusing to answer basic questions you possibly just made yourself a target under probable cause. So you can either go the hardliner way that eyewitness is recommending, which will get you hulled in for formal questioning about 99% of the time, or you can just answer the basic questions and hopefully end your interaction without going downtown.

On a related note...

Multnomah County sheriff’s office investigators are scrutinizing a corrections officer at the downtown jail for Internet postings made from his work computer in which he gloats about how fun it is to Taser people and brags about having crushed one inmate’s eye socket.

external link

And we're only hearing about the ones that are caught. I knew a PI once, and he used to hang out with a lot of cops. He said most of em were abused as kids and as a result became bullies themselves. He had some stories of his own, but due to his extensive knowledge of the law he never let himself be taken advantage of.

I have a little question here... say if the kid in this video wasn't kid say a 75 year old women that was in her 4 door sedan taking a break from driving a long distance and she didn't have a camera. First off if the old women saw the cop she would probably stop and talk to the officer to ask him if everything was ok in the area and if it was safe to stop and park in the parking lot. The cop would probably inform her that she might be in danger if she parked this late at night in the parking lot. She would probably ask the officer where the nearest motel was so she could take a rest from a long drive from state to state to see her grand baby. She would go about her own way and the cop would go about his way and there would be no problems.

The problem with the kid is... he is looking for trouble. He is recording the trouble he is looking for. He has a attitude. He has a problem with authority. He is trying to prove cops wrong. Even though there is a big "rights" movement involved here. The kid is looking for trouble to see if the cops are "Up to pare" with the way they handle things. First of this kid is stupid for trying to come at cops quoting amendments and rights(even though he has the right too) it's come at the cop as being arrogant and immature. The cop thinks that this kid has a problem with authority. The cop wanted to teach the kid a lesson. Just like a drill sergeant does in the military. They teach you a lessons to make you GROWN UP and responsible so you will put aside you trivial authoritative problems that are embedded in you brain from a young age.

I don't think this case has to do with bad cop good cop. It's a young brat trying to take on the law.

[edit on 11-9-2007 by Squatch]

[edit on 11-9-2007 by Squatch]

Originally posted by defcon5
So in refusing to answer basic questions you possibly just made yourself a target under probable cause. So you can either go the hardliner way that eyewitness is recommending, which will get you hulled in for formal questioning about 99% of the time, or you can just answer the basic questions and hopefully end your interaction without going downtown.

But, the individual did identify himself by presenting a valid Missouri drivers license when asked. This has never been in question. What has been in question. however, is the continued line of questioning and loss of control by the officer when the individual did not answer these questions as is his rights under the Constitution.

Let's not lose sight at what is really happening here.

I don't think anyone has excused the officer's actions in this entire thread. He stepped over the line. Nobody has lost sight of that, and he is currently paying the price for his actions.

Peace

Originally posted by Squatch
The problem with the kid is... he is looking for trouble. He is recording the trouble he is looking for. He has a attitude. He has a problem with authority. He is trying to prove cops wrong. Even though there is a big "rights" movement involved here. The kid is looking for trouble to see if the cops are "Up to pare" with the way they handle things. First of this kid is stupid for trying to come at cops quoting amendments and rights(even though he has the right too) it's come at the cop as being arrogant and immature. The cop thinks that this kid has a problem with authority. The cop wanted to teach the kid a lesson. Just like a drill sergeant does in the military. They teach you a lessons to make you GROWN UP and responsible so you will put aside you trivial authoritative problems that are embedded in you brain from a young age.

I don't think this case has to do with bad cop good cop. It's a young brat trying to take on the law.
edit on 11-9-2007 by Squatch]

Yes, we have mentioned the ethicality of driving around with scanners and cameras looking for incidents such as this. However, this individual did nothing wrong and committed no crime, despite how he answers questions or doesn't answer questions.

Second, I would dare anyone to think that it is stupid for wanting to know the law and use it. This is the kind of fear mongoring that has subdued most of society. Shhhh, don't make waves, ask questions or stand up for your rights because you might go to jail. WHAT?!?!?!?

And, as someone else stated, shouldn't the officer have been a professional and held his temper? After all, who has a gun strapped to their waist? So, it is o.k. for the officer to lose it like that?

Let me get this straight, it's o.k. for the cop to MAKE UP CHARGES to use against this individual just to "teach him a lesson" like a "DRILL SARGEANT"?

What is wrong with the big picture here?

So, making up charges that is ILLEGAL TO DO SO (talk about ethical...geeez), is o.k. as long as it causes the kid to GROW UP?

Does anyone else find this logic to be completely off-base?

[edit on 11-9-2007 by Freenrgy2]

Wow man, you're sure going out of your way to argue this, and you still haven't come up with one valid point.

Originally posted by Squatch
...say if the kid in this video wasn't kid say a 75 year old women that was in her 4 door sedan taking a break from driving a long distance and she didn't have a camera. First off if the old women saw the cop she would probably stop and talk to the officer to ask him if everything was ok in the area and if it was safe to stop and park in the parking lot. The cop would probably inform her that she might be in danger if she parked this late at night in the parking lot. She would probably ask the officer where the nearest motel was so she could take a rest from a long drive from state to state to see her grand baby. She would go about her own way and the cop would go about his way and there would be no problems.

Pure speculation, and irrelevant speculation at that. This has nothing to do with anything.

Originally posted by Squatch
The problem with the kid is... he is looking for trouble. He is recording the trouble he is looking for. He has a attitude.

Hmm, seems the only thing he HASN'T done is break the law.

Originally posted by Squatch
He has a problem with authority.

If you treated this way by someone in authority, you would too.

Originally posted by Squatch
He is trying to prove cops wrong.

The video did that, and he exposed this cop. What you're saying is that it's only wrong if you get caught.

Originally posted by Squatch
Even though there is a big "rights" movement involved here. The kid is looking for trouble to see if the cops are "Up to pare" with the way they handle things.

And apparently, they're not "up to par". You should be glad that he's exposed this kind of abuse of power. Oh that's right, abuse of power is perfectly ok if the public is not informed that it's happening.

Originally posted by Squatch
First of this kid is stupid for trying to come at cops quoting amendments and rights(even though he has the right too) it's come at the cop as being arrogant and immature.

You got me here, this statement is just too ridiculous for me to come up with an intelligent response.

Originally posted by Squatch
The cop thinks that this kid has a problem with authority. The cop wanted to teach the kid a lesson. Just like a drill sergeant does in the military. They teach you a lessons to make you GROWN UP and responsible so you will put aside you trivial authoritative problems that are embedded in you brain from a young age.

Again, laughable. The cops job is not to "teach lessons". It is to protect and serve first, and enforce the law of the land second. That's where a police officers duties end. Regardless of whether or not the kid had an attitude (which is subjective by the way), the fact remains, he DID NOTHING ILLEGAL. He broke NO law.

Now I've got to ask you, if we're all so crazy, and the cop was justified in his actions, why has he been placed on indefinite leave? Apparently some authority figure in a position to do so, found he was out of line, as we have.

Rights are like muscles, if you don't use 'em you lose 'em. Ponder a moment on this my friend, do you think if everyone in the country recorded their own traffic stops, and made it clear to the officers that they are aware of their rights, and aren't afraid to stand up for them, that there would be as much of this going on as there is?

Originally posted by Squatch
I don't think this case has to do with bad cop good cop. It's a young brat trying to take on the law.

How was he taking on the law? He didn't break any laws. He's not challenging the law. This statement doesn't deny ignorance, it spews it.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
However, is the continued line of questioning and loss of control by the officer when the individual did not answer these questions as is his rights under the Constitution.

But you excuse the kid for lack of common sense. Yes, I know, lack of common sense isn't a crime. He knows the law and his rights, but he lacks common sense. He's just book smart, not street smart. Forget the fact that you could argue the kid was actively looking for this particular problem.

Peace

Originally posted by Dr Love

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
However, is the continued line of questioning and loss of control by the officer when the individual did not answer these questions as is his rights under the Constitution.

But you excuse the kid for lack of common sense. Yes, I know, lack of common sense isn't a crime. He knows the law and his rights, but he lacks common sense. He's just book smart, not street smart. Forget the fact that you could argue the kid was actively looking for this particular problem.

Peace

care to explain? how does he lack common sense?

How does one rig their car or any other place with cameras that are feeding footage to an outside source? This is a great way to make sure this behavior is captured and archived. If cops were being recorded all the time, and had to follow the color of the law, they wouldn't be so corrupt. The same technologies that they use to bind us, will be the same technologies that free us.

[edit on 11-9-2007 by Amelie]

Originally posted by Dr Love

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
However, is the continued line of questioning and loss of control by the officer when the individual did not answer these questions as is his rights under the Constitution.

But you excuse the kid for lack of common sense. Yes, I know, lack of common sense isn't a crime. He knows the law and his rights, but he lacks common sense. He's just book smart, not street smart. Forget the fact that you could argue the kid was actively looking for this particular problem.

Peace

Again, we're back an issue that has NOTHING to do with what transpired. Sure, you and I and whomever could go back and forth all day long as to how much common sense this kid had or how ethical it is to drive around with a camera/scanner looking for trouble. For us, this is specualtion as we don't have the FACTS with regards to his motives. But, the FACTS do show an out-of-control police officer who was willing to BREAK THE LAW and create FALSE CHARGES because he didn't like the kid's attitude.

I guess I'm at a loss as to what you are really trying to say and because I am sticking to the FACTS about what transpired, that means that I excuse this? Where did I ever say I excused this?

I'll even quote that old police detective show Dragnet.."I just want the facts mam, just the facts".

Come on, you can do better than that.

[edit on 11-9-2007 by Freenrgy2]

Originally posted by Amelie
How does one rig their car or any other place with cameras that are feeding footage to an outside source?

like i stated a few pages back, it was most likely a bluff. It's possible, but to constantly upload video online, via a mobile WiFi connection would not only be too slow to work, but would also cost an arm and a leg (and all the plans ive ever seen do not allow the amount of data that would be required to upload video)