It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Constitutional Rights for Citizens: Police Contact

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 02:06 PM
I've heard several people state that refusal to submit to a search has been used against them as probable cause.

Does anyone know any legal recourse to this?

posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 02:49 PM
You heard wrong. No defense attorney would allow the subject of a persons using their Rights against them in any way. I would like to see the case that allowed that. The police say a lot of crap; no doubt that is what you heard, some rumor. The police say that if you do not cooperate, or this or that, blah, blah, that it will go against you.

It is all lies. Excercising your Constitutional rights CANNOT be held against you in a court of law. Whining about some defendant that dared to insist on having his Rights observed would make the cop look like a Nazi with no regard for the law. They feel that way, of course, but generally just gripe to each other.

Have no fear, any attorney will tell you that exercising your Rights is ALWAYS the right thing to do.Cop lies about the dire results are just nonsense meant to discourage people from using their precious Rights.

posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 03:17 PM
theindependentjournal- I'm really curious. Why do You not have a drivers license? For any specific reason in particular or because You just choose not to? How do the cops react when They ask for it & You say You don't have one?

Peace. K*

posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 03:33 PM
DENY Ignorance: You are wrong wrong wrong!!! It is NEVER EVER advised to admit guilt to ANYTHING. Which attorney told you that admitting guilt was a wise choice? You did not get your info from a professional, guaranteed.

I did NOT say that you should ' fumble ' in your pockets the moment a cop approaches you. Hand it to him when you show your ID. That makes sense, right? Then do not interfere with whatever they decide to do, do not resist, but do NOT give up any rights either.

DENY must trust cops to be in a good mood or to be totally different from the vast majority if he thinks that the best way to handle police confrontations is to give in and kowtow. No way.

Sure, it is OK to be calm; when did I ever say to be anxious? It is not easy to be calm when armed men confront you. But of course it is best to calmly hand them your card and remain silent. That is the best way. Then if the cop does ANYTHING that is not kosher, you have an excellent case.

I agree with you, DENY, that most cops are unaware of the law and our rights..ever wonder why? Do you think that maybe the police academies might try teaching a little bit about the INTENT of the law and the MANY rights we have Constitutionally? The fact that they do not is telling. They do not CARE about our Rights..simple. Our Rights are an impediment to their total control, and that they hate.

In summary, NEVER admit guilt, it can NEVER help you; it seals your fate. Advise the cops that you wish to have all of your Rights respected and then clam up. If you can show me an attorney that says diferent, than I might change my position, until then, trusting cops is the WORST way to protect yourself. If a cop is determined to violate the law and your rights he is going to do it no matter how you act, so best act in a way that gives an attorney something to work with later; that is half the game, don't you know?

All police officers should have to pass an intense test designed to see if they wil react on the side of our rights, or on the side of winning : an arrest an any cost. They should be thoroughly familiar with all critical court decisions that impact our rights, but sadly most never get adequate training. A few local yokel cops here actually thought that a middle finger displayed to them was 'disorderly conduct ' until my attorneys made a fool of them and had charges dismissed. Now they have to face a Federal civil rights trial; if you learn how the system works, you can file lawsuits pro se ( by yourself ) for only filing fees and drag the bad cops into Court to face justice and perhaps have to pay damages; If they do not get qualified immunity, then they have to pay out of their pocket and will not be protected by the insurance company that covers their employer.

If the word got out that it was expensive and ruining for a cop to violate our rights, far fewer would be tempted to cross the line and file false or improper charges, perjure themselves under oath or any other common police conduct. You have to hit them in their wallet before you can effect real change. But the newspaper publicity and letters of complaint and a trial will go far in making a cop very sorry he picked you to mess with.

Until and unless an attorney contradicts me, my advise stands as the best. Never admit guilt and never give up ANY rights. Quit putting cops on a pedastle and treating them like they are special; they are just a danger to our liberties at the worst and should never be trusted. They lie.

posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 09:02 PM
eyewitness, let's say you are not in your home or your car, you are on the street, maybe even in front of your property.
The police are wrongly called.
Do you have rights on public sidewalks? On your lawn?
On your neighbors' lawn/driveway?

It's been my experience that police like to use "interferring with police" when they have nothing else to hang on you.
What are your thoughts on that catch-all phrase?


posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 09:47 PM

Originally posted by eyewitness86
You heard wrong. No defense attorney would allow the subject of a persons using their Rights against them in any way. I would like to see the case that allowed that. The police say a lot of crap; no doubt that is what you heard, some rumor. The police say that if you do not cooperate, or this or that, blah, blah, that it will go against you.

Actually he isn't really wrong. If you are pulled over by the police in your car the police can search your car if something they see in plain view gives them probable cause to conduct a search. If you haven’t been drinking and don’t have anything on your car seats or floorboards that would give rise to suspicion, the police do not have probable cause to search your vehicle. If you refuse to allow a search of your car, the police may impound it and search it later after they obtain a warrant to do so.

The same pretty much goes for ones home. If the police appear at your door and ask if they can search the premises, you can refuse them entry if they do not have a search warrant. However, even if they don’t have a search warrant, they can still enter your home if while standing in the doorway they hear suspicious sounds or see illegal material in plain view.

You'll find that this is the norm in most if not all 50 states. Next time you need help, try calling a crack head instead of the police. Maybe you should do more research before you bash pretty much every man and woman in this country who wears a badge.

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 09:09 AM
Bobafet: You are TOTALLY wrong!! What you are saying is nonsense.

First, a cop CANNOT impound your vehicle because you refuse a search. That is ridiculous; on what basis would they impound it? For what offense?
Because they got their little feelings hurt when you refused? You are DEAD wrong.

Also, I said clearly that a person should never open their door to a cop without a warrant; that way there can be no way that a cop can see anything inside. Where do you get your info? NOT from an attorney or any case law, thats for sure. That is why you never open the door without a warrant. Only an emergency can give them a reason to enter without a warrant; that happens so seldom that it is not an honest point of contention.

Show me ONE case on record proving what you say, please. Until then, please do not try and obscure the truth by making statements not supported by fact.

ALSO, I NEVER said that a ' plain view' circumstance did not give them reason to search. You are bringing up straw men but that cannot detract from the fact that everything I said was correct.

But you had better do YOUR research before you make silly statements like ' they can impound your car if you refuse a search ". That is totally untrue and a fallacy. Show me ONE state law, or a Federal law, which supercedes state law anyway, that allows that. It does not exist. Cops have to have probable cause to confiscate property; remember the 4th Amendment? It applies to cars as well as all other property and it CANNOT be taken without DUE PROCESS, and that means you are WRONG.

As far as calling the cops or a crack head, what does that have to do with what I have been saying? Nothing, right? You are emotionally mistaking my sound legal advice for another issue. I do not have anything against the 1% ( One percent ) of the cops who do not routinely violate the law and the Constitutional rights of the people. God bless them! But they are almost non-existent these days. So back to the drawing board, or better yet a legal review or court file, before you make any kore spurious allegations that are unfounded. You are saying " But, if this happen, or that happens.." and I already said that special circumstances, like plain view items, are an exception to the rule.

Dontreadonme: Stay tuned to this space for more.

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 09:13 AM

On the street, you have more limited rights but still they should be observed always. If you are in an airport or train station or other mass transit facility you automatically give up some protections; before you board the police or other security may search you, with few limitations. However, you have the right to refuse any search and walk away. You have the right to halt any search at any time and walk away. But on the public streets, where most of the encounters occur, there are some guidelines that you should follow without exception:

If approached by a police officer, understand that he should have some valid reason, some suspicion, before even bothering you. The police are NOT supposed to walk up to random people because they feel like it and accost them. IF the officer has some ‘ reasonable grounds’ to believe that you are or might be involved in illegal activity, then he can stop you and ask you to identify yourself to him. You do NOT have to carry or present paper ID, such as a drivers license or state issued ID. No law demands that we carry ID.

However, in a distinction that has meaning, you must at least tell the officer your name and address if he has reason to stop you in the first place. The cops always tell people that they MUST carry ID and how it is the law….but somehow no one ever gets charged for not having it; just more cop lies. The cops want you to carry ID so that they are more reasonably certain who you are; but that is not the critical matter: the critical matter is that you have no need to prove that you are who you say you are, it is up to them to DISPROVE that you are who you say you are. The cops want the burden of proof on US, but the law puts the burden on THEM, and they do not like that. Tough. Their likes should not be a concern of ours. Only their actions.

They want easy answers and easy solutions to the issues they face; getting out and tracking info down and interviewing witnesses and such are WORK and not what the cops would rather be doing. So many ignorant citizens make it so easy for them that the pickings are great and they do not have to work hard at all to make cases when the citizens are falling all over themselves to ruin any chance they have to defend themselves in court by giving up their rights ; That is why I am doing this; so the people will have a better chance against a stacked deck. Know your rights or be a victim.

Now, on to the practical rights and how to apply them: If stopped, the police have the right to conduct a “ Terry “ search, which is a pat down of the OUTER clothing to see if you have any weapons on you. That is for the safety of the officer so he can deal with things without worrying about a sudden and deadly attack. Fair enough. But if the officer does NOT feel a hard object, like a knife or gun, then he cannot go into your pockets. Officers will often violate the law and your rights by simply ignoring them if he feels what he perceives to be ‘ drugs ‘.

But the problem with that is that many substances, flour, sugar, sand etc. can feel like any other powder and there is NO basis for the cop to assume that a soft substance is likely drugs unless he has a lot more evidence than that at hand. A good attorney can get that excluded. Also, the police do NOT have the right to tell you to ‘ empty your pockets ‘. No way. Just refuse and say “ I do NOT give consent to any searches “. Make that a mantra. Later it will be invaluable. Never volunteer to empty your pockets; the cops try and demand that you do so because they have no probable cause to do it themselves and they want you to GIVE it to them!! “ Open your trunk “ Empty your pockets “ The cops say this like an order and most Americans are so intimidated by the police that they assume that they are under some obligation to obey. WRONG!


posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 09:20 AM
But the cops are often willing to get the charge thrown out later in exchange for getting the alleged drugs away from the citizen ; he has ruined the guys day, gotten his stash, and still charged him with 3 or 4 other ‘add on’s ‘ as well to sweeten the deal. Cops often overcharge, meaning tack on spurious charges that they know have little chance of being proven but make the arrest look serious and hard for the defendant to make bail, etc. As long as the citizen goes to jail and has a hassle the cop gets a good feeling from it.The fact that he violated the Constitution and the law to do it matter not a bit to the average cop.

The only way to discourage this conduct, which is pandemic in the field, is to file complaints and federal civil rights charges. I know, it sounds strange for someone who was possibly involved with an illegal
activity to gripe about losing his gear, but the case is really about the illegal search. The guy can’t be charged with any offense since the evidence would have been suppressed, thus the dismissal. And the arrest and subsequent trouble the defendant went through can have a monetary value in Federal court when the obviously illegal search is proven.If a pattern of harassment can be shown thern really serious compensation may be possible. Always consult an attorney .

There are many angles but it is always best to obey the law and not put yourself in a position to be in jeopardy of losing your freedom. There are enough really innocent people behind bars now; many of them were trusting enough to talk to the police and regretted it later. Always let the attorney talk for you, he is able to say what needs to be said to protect you and you do not. Not unless you are thoroughly familiar with your rights and have the backbone to stand up to the police and not be intimidated by their game.

The only orders that should be obeyed are those that pertain to physical custody, like ‘ turn around and put your hands…” or “ do not move “, etc. Always obey to the letter any custody orders at once and without any resistance. Do not give them any excuse to abuse you or charge you with resisting, which they will do if you so much as ‘ lean your upper body away ‘ from the officer while he has a grip on you. Cooperate fully and write down everything possible for your attorney, should you actually be arrested.

If arrested, of course there is only one rule : Sat absolutely nothing at all until you speak to an attorney. It NEVER helps you to talk to the cops, never. They want you away from a lawyer so they can make you incriminate yourself, or others, and anything you say can be used in ways that you would not believe; many times what a person says is taken out of context and a defendant is NEVER advised to talk to the police after arrest. EVER. NOT ONE EXCEPTION. No matter what lies they tell, no matter how many promises they make, no matter what; you never make a statement or confession or admission to a cop, ever.

Next: Some real life examples and how to handle them, in detail.

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 10:35 AM
Dont tread on me:

Sorry I missed a question of yours: Interfering with an officer is one of those laws, like disorderly conduct, that cops use to violate the spirit and intent of the law in order to exert control over the people.

It is NOT interfering with an officer unless you do something that substantially interrupts the cop's ability to perform his duties. Such as:

Let us say that you are observing some cops dealing with someone; if you do not shout loud enough to make them unable to continue their course of action, and you do not physically attempt to intervene, then you have not interfered with a cop. The interference must be such that it makes the cops ability to function impossible unless they remove you from the scene.

You have the perfect RIGHT to make comments, express your opinion, make derogatory or critical comments to the cops, you can curse the cops, you can stand nearby; all of this is legal and your First Amendment right to do so. Of course, the cops hate it when they face any vocal opposition, they hate criticism or oversight from civilians so they might very well lie and demand that you leave, or shut up, or whatever.

I suggest strongly that before you make any effort to express yourself while cops are around to have a video camera with audio on hand to record what happens. The cops will lie, of course, and say that you interfered with them and made life difficult,etc..but video will tell the truth. Cops HATE video cameras as it makes them less able to violate rights openly and without regard for us as citizens. The fact that cops hate cameras is all the reason an intelligent person needs to always have one handy in case of a police confrontation becomes a reality.

As long as you are not standing where you can be in the way of the cops, and as long as you do not scream so loudly that they cannot hear each other or the suspects, you are fully within your rights to comment as you wish. If the cops simply do not like the CONTENT of what you say, then they lose; prior restarint of speech is a violation of your rights. Cops CANNOT legally tell you to ' shut up ' although they do so all the time. You may speak your mind as you wish and if they do not like it, tough.

But be advised that if you do not have proof, video preferably, the cops will lie and say that you interfered enough to matter just to get you. Lying under oath is as common for cops as it is for crooks. As long as they think that it is their word against yours, they will lie.

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 03:25 PM
Nothing I said was wrong. You type on and type on in this one man diatribe of yours. It is not however "sound" legal advice. I guess the degree I have in Criminal Justice is worthless and everything I learned at college was BS. Why did you start a thread? Just so you could ramble on about your supposed issues with law enforcement? You ask me for proof yet you provide none. Unless of course your proof the to be your words and somehow your words are the be all end all of the matter.

No one ever said that we do not have certain rights under constitutional amendments but you also have to obey the law. Sadly most of what you suggest will only provoke the situations. Why would you intentionally make the situation worse than it already may be? You make it sound as if police in your part of the world just randomly pull anyone they want over for no aparent reason? In my experience you only get pulled over for doing something wrong.

It really doesn't matter because you do not want to even discuss the possiblity that your "opinion" is wrong. There seems to be one set of rules here and you aren't willing to see others valid points. Calling different poster wrong and mistaken, though if you looked up any of the information in law books or consulted a lawyer they would advise against most of what you suggest.

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 04:39 PM
Are you saying that there is no truth to what the OP is saying?
Cops don't lie on a regular basis to do their jobs?
They are upholders of the Constitution and my rights?
They aren't heavy-handed unneccessarily?
They don't cut corners to make thier jobs easier at the risk of abusing the citizens Consitutional rights?
They don't make wrong assumptions about situations or jump to wrong conclusions and abuse constitutional rights because they are either poorly trained or unfit for the task at hand?
Which is the verifably bad information that the OP has given us?????????

Are you a law enforcement officer?

Look, I'm not saying all cops are bad, or that you are a bad cop. Heck, I even have had cop friends.
But I see all too many bad cops and all too many folks in uniform that should have been screened out.

I won't be opening MY door to them any time soon.

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 04:43 PM
I really dont understand what it is that many of you have against cops. While its wrong to have a police state we do need to have some rules and if those rules happen to seem unfair to some then to bad; if you dont like the cops writing tickets and arresting you then dont do things to get their attention and have them come after you.

The cops do not want to be the US version of the SS; they only want to collect their paychecks and go home to their families like the rest of us it just happens that they choose to enforce laws and save lives for a living. Just because the cops might wear BDUs and thigh holsters does not mean they are trying to emulate the US Army. Granted I think some agencies take it too far. I dont see a reason for patrol officers to wear BDUs but for SWAT, K9, Marine, Aviation, etc I see a reason. There is a time when tradition gets in the way of practical (ex. the uniforms of the New Jersey State Police who are not even issued short sleeved shirts for the summer and must wear cotton long sleeved shirts year round plus the bulky Class A jacket in the winter).
Imagine having to wear that in the summer. Hence the BDU type uniforms.

[edit on 4-7-2007 by ChrisF231]

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 05:07 PM

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Are you saying that there is no truth to what the OP is saying?
Cops don't lie on a regular basis to do their jobs?
They are upholders of the Constitution and my rights?
They aren't heavy-handed unneccessarily?
They don't cut corners to make thier jobs easier at the risk of abusing the citizens Consitutional rights?

No, that is not what I am saying. But in the posts he claims to be giving "sound, legal advise", which to me is a bit misleading.

Police officers who lie on a regular basis? No way! As do most human beings. Why do you suppose cops seem to do it more? Because I think they lie no more than anyone else. But that is my own opinion, not fact.

No, I am not a police officer. Does that matter? Here, I am not sure that this is a good analogy or not but I am going to use it: Say I am a Postal worker, which I am, and I get the usual, "Please don't go POSTAL on me!" as a joke. Of which isn't funny. Insinuating that me and everyone that I work with in unstable and will have bullets flying is the wind blows wrong.
Tomatoe nuclear warhead? Not really. To say that a large portion of law enforcement is corrupt is wrong, especially without any proof backing it up. Unless like I said before the proof is someone elses words because of some bad taste left in their mouth due to a run in with the law.

Are there corrupt police? Hell yeah. Using anything that they can to nail someone that may or may not be innocent. But, naive as it may sound, I think that there a thousands of men and women, who everyday do actually have good intentions and mean to uphold the laws that we are supposed to live by.

All I was trying to say was that OP isn't really playing fair. Accusing most other posters on this thread of being wrong and not knowing what they are talking about. The things posted read more like a RANT than information and topics of discussion.

Again, this is just my opinion. But the fact of the matter remains, OP hasn't given any proof of this "sound legal" advise and like I said, most lawyers wouldn't tell you to do the things he suggests. It, in the long run, will only make the situation worse.

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 06:09 PM
sounds like eyewitness spent some time behind bars, been arrested before and gained A LOT of jail house law experiance.
I mean anyone with that kind of hate for cops had to get those feelings from something.

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 06:52 PM
Sounds to me "wike some wittel person got a ticket and his ittle bitty feewins hurt"


Guff and misrepresentation..

Just another Cop hater with a chip...

Seen a million of them...


[edit on 7/4/2007 by semperfortis]

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 07:44 PM
yes it does seem that eyewitness has spent a considerable amount of time playing the belligerent and pushing hard enough to test more than one officers resolve lol.

the list of do's and dont's seems to cover all aspects of wrongdoing and how to get away with it lol.

the only thing that wasn't covered was the plea of (peer pressure or the devil made me do it) LMAO.

it has always been my experience that if you follow the rules you will have all the freedom in the world.

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 08:14 PM
Doesn't matter WHY anyone wants to do this. It's important, though, to understand what you can and can't legally do. While not all cops are bad, and maybe most are respectful, competent, and well-meaning, I believe that knowing the rights and responsibilities of you and the police officer protects both of you if you ever have an encounter. This doesn't only apply to things that you should refrain from doing, or that you may choose not to do, but also to things that you SHOULD and MUST do, like shutting the hell up and avoiding any actions that could be legally seen as antagonistic or resistant.

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 09:09 PM

Originally posted by bobafett1972
Are there corrupt police? Hell yeah. Using anything that they can to nail someone that may or may not be innocent. But, naive as it may sound, I think that there a thousands of men and women, who everyday do actually have good intentions and mean to uphold the laws that we are supposed to live by.

What you say is true, but without supernatural powers, how is one to know a good cop from a bad cop.
What Johnmike suggests is the only good approach as far as I can see.

And semper, no good can come from assuming one is a cop hater.
One cannot also assume one has spent time behind bars for having the views of the OP.
If a good citizen runs into a bad cop, that citizen must take whatever Constitutional precaustion offered to protect himself.
I've run into a bad cop myself.

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 09:22 PM
First as to whether they can make a crime out of you exercising your Rights... NO, the courts have said exactly that, read my links above for case cite.

I do not have a license to drive and haven't had one for over a decade now. I don't have one because I do not use the public roads for business. I do not need a license to drive and it only puts me under their jurisdiction when I take it. The license is a CONTRACT that you sign into, I prefer not to contract my Rights away.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in