Geek Club Lawyers/LEO's

[BLS 313]

One of the things I teach in my classes is how to deal with law enforcement after an incident with a firearm.

 

I know by doing my research that you can force law enforcement to either arrest you, write you a ticket or let you leave by asking them "Am I free to go, or am I being detained?".

 

I cannot for the life of me find out what this is called in legal circles. Any help?

[JackARoot 2]

It has to do with whether the officer has probable cause to believe a crime has been comitted and therefore whether he/she can arrest you. So, when you ask "Am I free to go?" you are forcing the officer to make a decision about whether there is enough to arrest. This comes up alot when the police pull you over for speeding, and then ask you "Do you have any drugs, firearms, etc.?" A: No "Can I search your vehicle to confirm that you don't have these things?" A: No, am I free to go?

 

Another important pointer is that if the officer Mirandizes you, then starts to question you, the best way to end the interogation is to ask for a lawyer. Under case law, if you say "I don't want to answer these questions" the officer can try again after a reasonable perios of time. But if you say "I want to consult an attorney" they cannot resume the questioning until you have had a chance to consult an attorney.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Jack has it right. By forcing them to either detain you are not, you are making them decide if they have probable cause or not. Also, once they've said you are detained, they have to Mirandize you, or any confessions you make will be thrown out.

 

Oftentimes, cops will sit and shoot the sh!t in borderline cases, hoping you will say something that will then give them probable cause.

[BLS 313]

It has to do with whether the officer has probable cause to believe a crime has been comitted and therefore whether he/she can arrest you. So, when you ask "Am I free to go?" you are forcing the officer to make a decision about whether there is enough to arrest. This comes up alot when the police pull you over for speeding, and then ask you "Do you have any drugs, firearms, etc.?" A: No "Can I search your vehicle to confirm that you don't have these things?" A: No, am I free to go?

 

Another important pointer is that if the officer Mirandizes you, then starts to question you, the best way to end the interogation is to ask for a lawyer. Under case law, if you say "I don't want to answer these questions" the officer can try again after a reasonable perios of time. But if you say "I want to consult an attorney" they cannot resume the questioning until you have had a chance to consult an attorney.

 

 

All good points. I am however, aware of this already. I guess my question is, what's the legal term for when an officer would continue to badger/question you even after you ask him if you are free to leave and he hasn't arrested you/mirandized you?

[flap 1]

All good points. I am however, aware of this already. I guess my question is, what's the legal term for when an officer would continue to badger/question you even after you ask him if you are free to leave and he hasn't arrested you/mirandized you?

I believe the legal term is "douchebaggery".

[hoytdwow 202]

One of the things I teach in my classes is how to deal with law enforcement after an incident with a firearm.

 

I know by doing my research that you can force law enforcement to either arrest you, write you a ticket or let you leave by asking them "Am I free to go, or am I being detained?".

 

I cannot for the life of me find out what this is called in legal circles. Any help?

you're teaching something without knowing what the fock you're talking about?

 

sounds about right

[BLS 313]

you're teaching something without knowing what the fock you're talking about?

 

sounds about right

 

Were you guided into being an ahole from childhood, or were you just born being a dooshbag?

[hoytdwow 202]

Were you guided into being an ahole from childhood, or were you just born being a dooshbag?

you teach people something, yet you have no idea what it is, and I'm the dooshbag?

 

[mmmmm...beer 692]

How about you tell just them to cooperate with law enforcement, because if they've done nothing wrong your fine?

 

This "incident" with a firearm you speak of is too focking vague a question.

 

Why the hell would I give you any information on how to subvert law enforcement from doing their job by investigating.

 

This whole thing smacks of boarderline shaddy/shoddy sh!t. Posse Comitatus lately?

[Bishop82 61]

How about you tell just them to cooperate with law enforcement, because if they've done nothing wrong your fine?

I know you are a police officer and all, but do you REALLY believe this?

[mmmmm...beer 692]

I know you are a police officer and all, but do you REALLY believe this?

 

Why the fock wouldn't I? It's not TV out there folks. I've NEVER arrested someone for something they didn't do. I've NEVER seen someone arrested for something they didn't do. It just doesn't happen. The media portray's so much bullsh!t... hundreds of thousands of people arrested a year.... and according to the media 90% are poor misunderstood people who didn't do anything.

[Strike 4,080]

Why the fock wouldn't I? It's not TV out there folks. I've NEVER arrested someone for something they didn't do. I've NEVER seen someone arrested for something they didn't do. It just doesn't happen. The media portray's so much bullsh!t... hundreds of thousands of people arrested a year.... and according to the media 90% are poor misunderstood people who didn't do anything.

 

Are you familiar with the Daniel Harless case?

[mmmmm...beer 692]

Are you familiar with the Daniel Harless case?

 

Sure there's exceptions to everything.... how about the other 999,999 people arrested last year?

 

If it happens it sucks... and I feel horrible for those people it does happen to. I'm betting more people are struck by lighting...

[Strike 4,080]

Sure there's exceptions to everything.... how about the other 999,999 people arrested last year?

 

If it happens it sucks... and I feel horrible for those people it does happen to. I'm betting more people are struck by lighting...

 

I doubt you can honestly say you've never seen someone arrested for something they didn't do. While it may not be the norm it's nowhere near as rare as you are claiming.

[mmmmm...beer 692]

I doubt you can honestly say you've never seen someone arrested for something they didn't do. While it may not be the norm it's nowhere near as rare as you are claiming.

 

Heh... you doubt I can say that huh? Good that you have an opinion. It's pretty sweet how you know me without ever meeting me! Also absolutely cool how you do that thing where you know stuff about something you've never done before. I know I've only been doing it for the past two decades and I have to acquiesce to your superior knowledge of my field. Thanks for the lessons sir.

[JackARoot 2]

All good points. I am however, aware of this already. I guess my question is, what's the legal term for when an officer would continue to badger/question you even after you ask him if you are free to leave and he hasn't arrested you/mirandized you?

It's called wrongful arrest

[BLS 313]

It's called wrongful arrest

 

 

No it's not. You haven't been arrested yet.

[BLS 313]

How about you tell just them to cooperate with law enforcement, because if they've done nothing wrong your fine?

 

This "incident" with a firearm you speak of is too focking vague a question.

 

Why the hell would I give you any information on how to subvert law enforcement from doing their job by investigating.

 

This whole thing smacks of boarderline shaddy/shoddy sh!t. Posse Comitatus lately?

 

 

No offense brother, but that's NOT the point of the thread. I'm curious about the terminology.

I have to think you would know this information I'm talking about yet?

 

We can have the discussion about how to proceed with Law Enforcement in another thread if you wish. It's a valid point.

[BLS 313]

you teach people something, yet you have no idea what it is, and I'm the dooshbag?

 

 

Hey retard. What I'm saying is factually true. I'm just interested in the term for it.

 

Thanks for playing. Do your parents hate you?

[JackARoot 2]

No it's not. You haven't been arrested yet.

That's the whole point of "Am I free to go?"

 

I'd like to go, may I? Make a decision Mutha, I don't want to chat

[Vikings4ever 496]

Unlawful detention?

[SUXBNME 1,352]

Man...Some of you (meaning Hoyt, as usual) are focking retreads. BLS is obviously wise to the ways of teh interwebs, but is looking for a technical term (cop speak, mebbe)to tell his students what terminology to use if confronted in this scenario.

 

Meh...I'm kinda drunk, so fock you all. (except for BLS)

[mmmmm...beer 692]

No offense brother, but that's NOT the point of the thread. I'm curious about the terminology.

I have to think you would know this information I'm talking about yet?

 

We can have the discussion about how to proceed with Law Enforcement in another thread if you wish. It's a valid point.

 

oh. nevermind then, .

[Strike 4,080]

Heh... you doubt I can say that huh? Good that you have an opinion. It's pretty sweet how you know me without ever meeting me! Also absolutely cool how you do that thing where you know stuff about something you've never done before. I know I've only been doing it for the past two decades and I have to acquiesce to your superior knowledge of my field. Thanks for the lessons sir.

 

Yup, I doubt it 100%. It's like the thread recently about what to tell a cop - NOTHING. Cops don't have discussions with you to try to exonerate you. They are looking for evidence. Period. And if you deny that you're lieing. It's taught in the classes you take to become a cop. But I get it man. The whole blue shield Bullsh*t. Cops protect cops. That's what you do so your stance in this thread is understandable. Not honorable but understandable. Just don't expect anyone to buy it.

[Voltaire 4,580]

I hate to hijack this thread but this lawyer question should be pretty easy and we can get back to BLS.

 

Last July my head exploded when the 6th circuit court overturned the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, Prop Two. Michigan voters had passed it 58-42%. I was so focking p*ssed but thankfully by September, the decision was vacated when the entire court decided to hear in en banc. Now, it took them a long time again, then they heard the case in March... call me anxious ... I've been on pins and needles waiting for over two months now for the decision to come down.

 

So my question is.... how long does it usually take for a circuit court to go from hearing a case to announcing the decision? There's never any news about this (because there's nothing new to report). I worry I'll miss it though so I've been doing a Google search pretty much every day for the psat 100 days now. It's gotta be coming down pretty soon right?

[kutulu 1,561]

They call em pigs cause they're dirty.

[BLS 313]

I'm getting closer.

 

Prophylactic ruleA prophylactic rule is a judicially-crafted rule that overprotects a constitutional right, and gives more protection than such right might abstractly seem to require on its face, in order to safeguard that constitutional right or improve detection of violations of that right.^[1] An example is the case of Miranda v. Arizona which adopted a prophylactic rule (“Miranda warnings") to protect the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The exclusionary rule, which restricts admissibility of evidence in court, is also sometimes considered to be a prophylactic rule.^[2]The notion of prophylactic rules is controversial. U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have argued against them, writing that the ability of judges to create these rules "is an immense and frightening antidemocratic power, and it does not exist."^[3]

 

Exclusionary rule

 

^{The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law. This may be considered an example of a prophylactic rule formulated by the judiciary in order to protect a constitutional right. However, in some circumstances at least, the exclusionary rule may also be considered to follow directly from the constitutional language, such as the Fifth Amendment's command that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" and that no person "shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law"."The exclusionary rule is grounded in the Fourth Amendment and it is intended to protect citizens from illegal searches and seizures."[1] The exclusionary rule is also designed to provide a remedy and disincentive, which is short of criminal prosecution in response to prosecutors and police who illegally gather evidence in violation of the Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights compelled to self-incrimination. The exclusionary rule also applies to violations of the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to counsel.}

 

^{Most states also have their own exclusionary remedies for illegally obtained evidence under their state constitutions and/or statutes, some of which predate the federal constitutional guarantees against unlawful searches and seizures and compelled self-incrimination.[2]}

 

^{This rule is occasionally referred to as a legal technicality because it allows defendants a defense that does not address whether the crime was actually committed. In this respect, it is similar to the explicit rule in the Fifth Amendment protecting people from double jeopardy. In strict cases, when an illegal action is used by police/prosecution to gain any incriminating result, all evidence whose recovery stemmed from the illegal action—this evidence is known as "fruit of the poisonous tree"—can be thrown out from a jury (or be grounds for a mistrial if too much information has been irrevocably revealed).}

 

^{The exclusionary rule applies to all persons within the United States regardless of whether they are citizens, immigrants (legal or illegal), or visitors.}

 

 

[JTB 52]

I'm getting closer.

 

Prophylactic ruleA

 

 

The rubber rule!

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

I hate to hijack this thread but this lawyer question should be pretty easy and we can get back to BLS.

 

Last July my head exploded when the 6th circuit court overturned the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, Prop Two. Michigan voters had passed it 58-42%. I was so focking p*ssed but thankfully by September, the decision was vacated when the entire court decided to hear in en banc. Now, it took them a long time again, then they heard the case in March... call me anxious ... I've been on pins and needles waiting for over two months now for the decision to come down.

 

So my question is.... how long does it usually take for a circuit court to go from hearing a case to announcing the decision? There's never any news about this (because there's nothing new to report). I worry I'll miss it though so I've been doing a Google search pretty much every day for the psat 100 days now. It's gotta be coming down pretty soon right?

It often takes months. Remember how long the NFL case took? And that was on the "expidited" fast track. Courts are slower than santa clause on queludes.