• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Simple freedom test-for legislators & LEO's

DCR

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2008
Messages
162
Location
, ,
Would you be willing to propose or support a statute that states language to the effect of "any contact initiated by a law enforcement officer with an individual shall be presumed nonconsensual, unless originally requested by the same individual."

I bet you'll be surprised who opposes it....
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
Wow. Very progressive, writing more law to cure ignorance.
That's not a fair statement. The lines of when an encounter is consensual is vague at best. It's easy to say "just walk away, if it's not consensual you'll know" but that will most probably get you killed. The tone the *** is using, the amount of **** around, the gestures etc can all be factors in whether you are free to go.

I would wholeheartedly support a law spelling out specifics as to when a consensual encounter turns into a detainment. It should be crystal clear.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
That's not a fair statement. The lines of when an encounter is consensual is vague at best. It's easy to say "just walk away, if it's not consensual you'll know" but that will most probably get you killed. The tone the *** is using, the amount of **** around, the gestures etc can all be factors in whether you are free to go.

I would whole heatedly support a law spelling out specifics as to when a consensual encounter turns into a detainment. It should be crystal clear.
***?

Are you insulting LEO'S here?

Not allowed. Tisk, tisk, tisk.

Grapeshot anyone?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
Progressivism is the political bowel movement to make-things-better and leave US to suffer the consequences; well illustrated here.
Sometimes when liberties are being constrained some actions "to make-things-better" are needed.
Laws against those who have found a way to strangle our freedoms are needed.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Pig?

Are you insulting LEO'S here?

Not allowed. Tisk, tisk, tisk.

Grapeshot anyone?
He has nothing but insults to throw around per usual.

I'd be against a law that said every encounter is a detainment.

Id be for them compiling the case law into something clearer.

But in the end a citizens rights are theirs to use and know. Does there really have to be another law reminding them of the 4th amendment? The onus is already on LE to know the case law. To know to use white lights instead of blue. To know they can ask to see ID but if they actually take it it becomes a stop. To know they can say hey how are you but hey stop minute..... Etc. Etc. Etc. If the Leo steps out of bounds the citizen hires an attorney (or is provided one) and said attorney knows the case laws. So again... Why the need to reiterate what's already established?

Hey nightmare I agree with you. [emoji14]
 

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
Would you be willing to propose or support a statute that states language to the effect of "any contact initiated by a law enforcement officer with an individual shall be presumed nonconsensual, unless originally requested by the same individual."

I bet you'll be surprised who opposes it....
Counterproductive in my opinion. LEO's are apart of the community and should have more interaction on a personal level. I would like to see them walking a beat like in times past. Have them and the community get to know each other. LEO's have become to far disconnected.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Counterproductive in my opinion. LEO's are apart of the community and should have more interaction on a personal level. I would like to see them walking a beat like in times past. Have them and the community get to know each other. LEO's have become to far disconnected.
Agreed. Help dispel the "us vs. Them" stigma that both sides foster.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
Neither a legislature nor LEO and expand upon our rights but can only deprive us of them .. so its a trick question?

Am I right?
 

DCR

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2008
Messages
162
Location
, ,
Not a trick question -

An honest one. Just wanted to see if anyone got the responses I did: Republican legislators opposed it, LEO's adamantly opposed it, Democrat legislatures were mixed but 2 of 3 supported it. I also asked attorneys I know; private and defense attorneys supported it, prosecutors and deputy AG's said it'd make their jobs harder because there would be more successful motions to suppress, but they could live with it (slim majority - 4 of 7).

I found it curious that "law-and-order" types didn't want limits on police authority, yet they all characterize themselves as pro-freedom/pro-individual-rights. I raised the question to this forum to see if I was just dealing with whackadoodles, or if others got the same responses I did.

BTW, Idaho had, and still does have, some "presumptive" statutes on the books, so anyone who thinks this would be a radical departure is mistaken. Thankfully for the OC movement, an old Fish & Game statute was repealed years ago. It created a legal presumption that anyone carrying an uncased firearm in the field was hunting. Many innocent folks got hassled and cited over that one for hunting without a license.

I'd support a statute presuming any contact initiated by an officer was nonconsensual because there would be less wiggle room for officers to approach OC'ers, or anyone for that matter, and claiming the PC that led to a search or arrest was generated from a consensual encounter.

Frankly, aside from Constitutional Carry, it would be the only truly pro-citizen's rights, no-cost, everybody wins piece of legislation the clowns in Boise have introduced this session.

Just my $.02 - you can keep the change.
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
It's a self-fulfilling right. If you're stopped by a thug with a gun, there's no sense saying 'Am I free to go'. They'll likely lie.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,325
Location
White Oak Plantation
Cop: Excuse me Sir, could I have a moment of your time?
Citizen: Sure
Cop: You're under arrest, your fly is unzipped.
Citizen: ...uh, what?
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,449
Location
Valhalla
Cop: Excuse me Sir, could I have a moment of your time?
Citizen: Sure
Cop: You're under arrest, your fly is unzipped.
Citizen: ...uh, what?
Too easy, Drill Sergeant! Open fly = indecent exposure, or at least conspiracy to commit same. :D

I need to get my business cards reprinted. I'm a consultant - my time is my lifeblood and I have a reasonable expectation to be paid for that time. Until we get a contract signed the cops is merely trying to steal my intellectual property.

Cop once told me I had to stop and talk to him. I asked why I had to talk to him. He replied "Because you are a pompous little *it!" Strangely he declined my suggestion that he arrest me for being a pompous little *it while showing him (one of) my digital voice recorder.

But getting back to the OP's question - do we "NEED" a law that defines any/all/most/some encounters as non-consensual? I'd say probably "Yes" - because of where case law now stands. As we should all know the way to corrrect bad case law is to rewrite the law so judges have a harder time interpreting it other than the way we want it interpreted. I'm just not sure it wouldn't be better to put it under civil law rather than criminal law.

stay safe.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,325
Location
White Oak Plantation
Too easy, Drill Sergeant! Open fly = indecent exposure, or at least conspiracy to commit same. :D

....

I'm just not sure it wouldn't be better to put it under civil law rather than criminal law.

stay safe.
Ding ding ding.

Of course, we should burden the offending cop by having the jurisdiction pay for his transgressions rather than he.
 

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
Would you be willing to propose or support a statute that states language to the effect of "any contact initiated by a law enforcement officer with an individual shall be presumed nonconsensual, unless originally requested by the same individual."

I bet you'll be surprised who opposes it....
Yes.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,283
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
....Simple freedom test-for legislators & LEO's
I have a simpler freedom test. Are they willing to rule you without your express individual consent?

If they are your equals, how can they possibly rule you legitimately unless you expressly, voluntarily agree to let them be more equal than you aka you expressly, voluntarily agree to set them above you or you expressly, voluntarily agree to let them set themselves above you?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,283
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
That's not a fair statement. The lines of when an encounter is consensual is vague at best. It's easy to say "just walk away, if it's not consensual you'll know" but that will most probably get you killed. The tone the pig is using, the amount of pigs around, the gestures etc can all be factors in whether you are free to go.

I would wholeheartedly support a law spelling out specifics as to when a consensual encounter turns into a detainment. It should be crystal clear.


There is an easier way. More decisive.

Just declare to the cop, "No offense, officer. I know you're just doing your job. But, I do not consent to an encounter with you."

This instantly makes any continuation by the cop a non-consensual encounter.

You just bounced the ball back into his court. Now, he must play that ball. Now, he must have reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) (see Terry v Ohio and subsequent cases). Or, he must have some other exception to the warrant clause, for example, a community caretaking function, etc. Furthermore, if it later turns out he did not have RAS, he's actionable.

If you make a bit of a study of court cases about detentions, one thing starts to become clear. There have been reams of cases where the courts are sorting out whether the encounter was voluntary or not. The courts dig into minute details. BUT! The only reason they are doing that is because they have to--the detained person never said, "I don't consent to an encounter with you, officer." I have not yet seen a case--out of perhaps a few dozen--where the detained person declared "I don't consent to an encounter". Not once. Never.

I developed this tactic from a federal case I read. It didn't sink in until later when I saw the federal case quoted in a VA state case. Here is the paraphrase: Fourth Amendment case law recognizes three types of police-citizen encounters. 1. Consensual encounters. 2. Brief, minimally intrusive, involuntary encounters based on articulable facts sometimes referred to as detentions. 3. Highly intrusive custodial arrests.

The courts handed me the hint. They recognize whether an encounter is consensual.

We already express refused consent on the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. There is no reason you cannot do the same thing under the 4th Amendment.

During an encounter, after I politely refuse consent to the encounter itself, if the cop continues the encounter for even one more question, then I just assume I am seized. Instead of asking whether I am free to go, I would ask, "When will I be released from this detention, officer?"

Cops are good at dodging questions, including, "Am I being detained?" And, "Am I free to go?" Why let a cop (or anyone) keep you uncertain by dodging or otherwise not answering your question? Just take that initiative away from the cop by taking the initiative yourself. "I do not consent to an encounter with you, officer."
 
Last edited:

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
Wow. Very progressive, writing more law to cure ignorance.
Not so much cure ignorance as clarify the nature of the encounter beyond a reasonable doubt to the common juror (not selected for their intellect or understanding of the law, I've heard, nor always allowed to know the actual letter of the law); in a time when a "consensual" encounter can include one where a cop says "you aren't being arrested, but you can't leave", such wording of the law might help curb the distortion of the law and expansion of perceived police "authority" (coercion/intimidation, when unlawful requests/actions are made under color of law). Of course, the ultimate goal being to roll it back.

Then again, sometimes you have the judge who is honest and makes it clear that "I will not allow the law in my courtroom!".:banghead:

There is an easier way. More decisive.

Just declare to the cop, "No offense, officer. I know you're just doing your job. But, I do not consent to an encounter with you."

This instantly makes any continuation by the cop a non-consensual encounter.

SNIP...

The courts handed me the hint. They recognize whether an encounter is consensual.

We already express refused consent on the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. There is no reason you cannot do the same thing under the 4th Amendment.

During an encounter, after I politely refuse consent to the encounter itself, if the cop continues the encounter for even one more question, then I just assume I am seized. Instead of asking whether I am free to go, I would ask, "When will I be released from this detention, officer?"

Cops are good at dodging questions, including, "Am I being detained?" And, "Am I free to go?" Why let a cop (or anyone) keep you uncertain by dodging or otherwise not answering your question? Just take that initiative away from the cop by taking the initiative yourself. "I do not consent to an encounter with you, officer."
Great post. Glad to have you back.

If anything, I'd say the "freedom test" should include "and delegate any investigation of a law-enforcement officer and/or courtroom official to an unbiased, third-party body, composed of the citizenry, with the authority to supersede and sanction the officers and officials in accordance with the law".

Just vain hopes, I know.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,325
Location
White Oak Plantation
Arrest.

544.180. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his submission to the custody of the officer, under authority of a warrant or otherwise. The officer must inform the defendant by what authority he acts, and must also show the warrant if required.
A cop asked me for my endorsement and ID. I handed him the documents as required under RSMo. I remained silent. The cop was getting frustrated that I refused to speak with him. He finally came out and demanded that I answer his questions.

I have this RSMo on a business sized card and handed him one.

After reading it he fell silent, handed me my documents and returned to his cruiser.

I never talk to a cop who "consensually encounters" me without my prior consent...like call me up and make a appointment.
 
Top