All they gotta do is right down what their PC is. As with OC, where OC is not unlaful, mere OCing is not PC. Mere presence is not PC. provide your papers and if the feds get uppity get their names/badge numbers then inform them that they will be sued. QI does not protect idiots who know they are violating the law/your rights.
Body cams work both ways. I think I'll take a hint out of the pages of Russia drivers and wear a body cam full-time. Can't afford a high-quality, concealable body cam right now, so I'll rely on my trusty digital voice recorder.
I thought it was 100 miles.
50 miles fully covers San Diego, and 100 miles covers the southern 'burbs of Los Angeles. Is there, perhaps, an official definition which excludes dense pockets of known American citzens?
I do know within that zone CBP can and will stop random vehicles and search them using "probable cause".
While they might "claim" probable cause," unless the conditions actually meet probable cause, they're not "using" probable cause.
The 19 sections of our local police department's General Orders amount to 672 pages. Broken down into Field and Admin sections, they include all normal situations the average police officer could be expected to encounter.
One of the most important situations is "Citizen Contact," defined as "a face-to-face communication between an officer and a citizen under circumstances in which there is a lack of probable cause to detain or arrest." The reg goes on to day, "Contacts differ from detentions or arrests in that contacts do not involve the "seizure of persons" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and, therefore, the person has a legal right to leave at any time."
The section further explains:
"When initiating "citizen contacts," officers will remember that the person contacted is under no legal obligation to cooperate. The lack of legal obligation to cooperate results from the absence of probable cause, or of the legal justification to detain or arrest the person. Officers lack the authority, under these circumstances, to require the person to answer questions or to cooperate in any way. If the person contacted refuses to cooperate, the officer must allow the person to proceed with whatever activity s/he was engaged in before the contact was made. However, an officer may continue to observe such a person and, when additional facts warrant, conduct a stop and field interview or arrest."
Essentially, a "field interview" is a detention: "A field interview occurs when an officer uses police authority either to compel a person to halt, to remain in a certain place, or to perform some act (such as walking to a nearby location where the officer can use a radio or telephone). If the person being stopped reasonably believes that s/he is not free to leave the officer's presence, a field interview is occurring."
Of course as with LE in general "probable cause" means whatever flimsy made up excuse to stop they want it too.
That's not been my experience, not in any of the nine states and thirteen cities in which I've lived over the last 55 years.
Just where DID you received your jaded view of "LE in general," Ghost1958? Was it scattered around the country, thereby constituting a reasonably fair random sample? Or were bad guys with badges localized in one particular area?
The reason I ask is because I have encountered crooked cops, mainly in the state highway patrol.
One such group patrolled the Virginia side of the border between Virginia and West Virginia along I-460, westbound. Yes, the first ticket of three I was speeding, 64 in a 55 zone. The next two tickets I was smack on 55, then smack on 50. Exact same locations, and twice, the same officer, who was crooked as hell. I worked just over the border, in Pearisburg, WV. Rather than suffer a fourth speeding ticket from the hands of a crooked cop, I quit my job (I was 6 weeks from graduating, anyway, so no big deal).
The second incident involved the wide-known debacle whereby Colorado's State Highway Patrol asked all county sheriffs to forward them a list of CHP holders, which was subsequently entered into a database. Fortunately, only half of Colorado's sheriffs complied. They were sued such a list is a direct violation of Colorado State law. The judgement was for the plaintiffs.