[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Well, you could always call the ACLU, what the hell, maybe they’ll take it on.
[/QUOTE]
He could, but I would suspect they’re probably plenty busy helping people whose civil liberties have actually been, you know, violated.
Then again, it could be instructional if they did agree to take his case— because if they have time to devote to something like this, it must mean that our civil liberties are in pretty damn good shape.
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
I’m not familiar with the laws involved (where in the world are you?) but it does seem unfair.
[/QUOTE]
I had only read the OP’s print and your reply, but I knew the answer to your question immediately.
[QUOTE=Reply]
[/QUOTE]
As a general rule, my understanding is that people are expected to follow legal instructions/requests by police. No, you are not expected to know exactly what may or may not be every conceivable legal instruction. You have to apply some common sense. Which is where I think you fell short.
Regarding your question 1. there is no obligation that cops write you up for every offense you may be committing. They enjoy considerable discretion. As do prosecutors in deciding what to charge, and judges deciding what sentence to impose.
I don’t understand why you characterize them as “finding” some other offense. The first offense was there. You were where you shouldn’t have been when you shouldn’t have been there.
So you didn’t know. So you’re from a different country where there are different laws/habits. So what? The cops would gladly have let you slide, had you not decided that you wanted to make this about your “rights.”
This comes to the cops’ discretion again. If you appear reasonable, and no one is in danger, and you apologize for an honest minor violation committed by mistake, they will often let you go. But I’d like to know what country you are from where when cops light you up late at night, and inform you you aren’t supposed to be there, that they respond kindly to you not cooperating with what many - if not most - folk would consider a pretty innocuous request.
And please explain to me why you consider relating your name more of an invasion of your rights than consenting to a search of your car or person?
Heck, you had every right to act exactly how you did. I just think it was pretty unnecessary and - in simple terms - stupid. No, all cops aren’t dicks looking to hassle folks. In fact most aren’t. But they sure don’t want folks to hassle them. And if I’m deciding who to piss off, I’ll generally choose NOT the guy with the gun on his hip and the legal authority to put me in jail. I guess I’m just wierd that way.
A citizen informed by a cop that he is doing something wrong is a pretty extreme case of an imbalance of power. You really should consider the consequences of saying much other than the alternatives of “Yes sir. I’m sorry. It won’t happen again” or “I want a lawyer.”
[QUOTE=Reply]
But they had already questioned both of us, searched me, and seemed content (as far as I can tell) to let us go after we revealed our names. The suspicion was justified in the beginning, which is why I answered all his questions, but once the cop verbally revealed that he did not think we were responsible for the suspected criminal activities – basically implying that he thought we were innocent – at that point, what legitimate reason did he still have to demand my identity? Yes, the knife and time might’ve given him reason to suspect me at first, but he considered both things and still believed we were innocent… and then turned right around and used them against me.
That could only make sense to me if he didn’t actually think we were innocent and was just saying so to get us to reveal our names, but then that’d be another ethical issue. Either way, it just seemed slightly dirty. I think their intention was simply to keep the peace, which I have no problem with, but why couldn’t they have simply said “Okay, we don’t think you’re doing anything wrong, but we’d like to be sure. Can we have your name so we can check it against outstanding warrants?” instead of arresting me for pointless offenses just so they can force me to reveal my identity?
[/QUOTE]
FWIW, I asked my neighbour who is a police (different locations, different laws, similar police mentality/procedures). He asked for your name because he knew under what name the car was registered. If it doesn’t match, then they ask whose car it is and why you are driving it. Part of their job.
Reply, you were very lucky. It has been my misfortune to be involved with and/or around a number of situations such as you described. I can’t believe I’m the first poster here to tell you that you could have been hurt for your little bit of smart-ass posturing.
Most cops wouldn’t have let you leave without some pain being experienced on your part. As was noted above, pick your battles. After midnight, in a dark park, with you, a drunk girl and two or three cops is not the place to mouth off. Next time say “yessir, nossir”, tell 'em whatever they want to hear and get the hell out of there before nightsticks come into play.
Fair? No, but it is reality. Be smart, man.
All ya’ll crackin’ on **Reply **need to check out post # 92.
[QUOTE=John Carter of Mars]
[After midnight, in a dark park, with you, a drunk girl and two or three cops is not the place to mouth off. Next time say “yessir, nossir”, tell 'em whatever they want to hear and get the hell out of there before nightsticks come into play.
Fair? No, but it is reality. Be smart, man.
[/QUOTE]
Yessir, I accept living in your police state. Yesir. Yesir. Yesir.
oh, lets invade and occupy a foreign country while we’re at it.
YESIR!
[QUOTE=Spezza]
Yessir, I accept living in your police state. Yesir. Yesir. Yesir.
oh, lets invade and occupy a foreign country while we’re at it.
YESIR!
[/QUOTE]
Pick your places is all I’m saying. If you wanna smart off to cops under the above circumstances, have at it and get your head lumped for your troubles.
That’s your choice.
[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
He could, but I would suspect they’re probably plenty busy helping people whose civil liberties have actually been, you know, violated.
.
[/QUOTE]
.
They were. His knife did not violate the local townships codes, and even if it did, it appreas to me to be of doubtful Constitutionality in CA. CA Courts have ruled that once the State regulates something, local townships may not regulate it further. This was for gun laws, not knife laws, but the two are somewhat similar.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/10/BAGGCFLLCI1.DTL
"Plaintiffs in the lawsuit – filed in the first district state Court of Appeal in San Francisco – also include California Association of Firearm Retailers, two other organizations and seven individual gun owners. They argue that the new handgun ban is virtually identical to a 1982 ordinance that was struck down by the appellate court on the ground that it conflicted with state law.
The court’s statement in 1982 – that “the Legislature intended to occupy the field of residential handgun possession to the exclusion of local governmental entities’’ – applies equally to Prop. H, according to the lawsuit.”
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/doe_v_san_francisco.txt
However, the NRA does not usually spend it’s budget fighting knife laws (so no one has bothered to challenge them), and even so I am not a Constitutional Lawyer and guns and knives may be too different.
[QUOTE=Spiff]
I disagree.
I also know the wisdom of picking one’s battles (at least I try to know), but if the cop is clearly trying to overstep his or her authority and does violate your civil liberties, then stand up for your rights.
If we don’t, they will go away forever, and that’s worth fighting for.
[/QUOTE]
Clearly you don’t know. As Martin Hyde pointed out, you aren’t going to beat the cop. In what way to you imagine that scenario playing out to your satisfaction?
[QUOTE=Reply in post # 1]
He repeated that the park was closed and that being there constituted a misdimeanor, and further, the knife that I carried constituted another misdemeanor offense in that particular city. The first cop came up to me and, in a seemingly sincere and friendly tone, said “Hey man, what’s the problem? Are you drunk? High? Do you have weed on you or a warrant or something? Don’t worry about that, man, we’re not here for that… we’re just here doing our jobs because there’s been a few transients and gangbangers here lately. But you’re good people. Just give us your name and we’ll be gone… no trouble.”
. . .
He walked me over to the other side of the car and his partner came over and said “Okay, now we’re just playing games. Arrest him.” So they escorted me into the back seat and I complied. The first cop, shaking his head, asked “Why, man, why? We have to take you to jail for this now.” I answered, “I told you. It just seems unfair.” “Once last chance, man. It doesn’t have to be this hard.” I refused.
[/QUOTE]
These two sections of your post show where (to me) you made your error. Up until the officers pointed out that your being at the park at that time was, in fact, a misdemeanor, you probably had at least a reasonable reason not to give your identity. However, once they specifically accused you of criminal conduct (for which they could have arrested you immediately and demanded your identity incident to arrest, without giving you any chance to explain yourself), it was time to give them your identity. But they gave you another chance to identify yourself after they specifically told you that you were committing a crime. Hell, they gave you another chance to identify yourself and get out of it after they had arrested you and put you in the back of the police car.
In your second post you say that they could have told you that you were committing a crime immediately upon their first encountering you, and you would have given them your identity then. However, you object to the fact that they didn’t immediately accuse you of a crime, but rather gently investigated two people hanging out in a closed part, and only brought the criminal aspect of it up in the later part of the encounter. If you would have given your identity upon learning that you were committing a crime at the outset, you should have given your identity immediately upon learning you were committing a crime later in the encounter. You were a fool not to do so after they had actually arrested you.
The fact that he probably would have let you off before you refused to give your identity doesn’t matter, and almost certainly won’t matter down the line in the criminal process. The officer knew darn well from the beginning that being in a park after hours was a misdemeanor, and he could have arrested you at the outset. He didn’t do that because he was using his discretion to go easy on what appeared initially might have been two otherwise innocent people hanging out at the park. Once you didn’t identify yourself, the officer became suspicious and escalated the situation. When you persisted in not identifying yourself after being told you were committing a crime, it looked like you were hiding something, and arrested you as he could have done in the beginning.
From my (largely uninformed as I am not a criminal lawyer) perspective, there were no Fourth Amendment search and seizure issues. This was not a Terry stop situation, where an officer may stop and investigate someone based on mere “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity. Here, the officers had “probable cause” to believe that a crime was being committed, namely being in a park after hours, and thus could have made an arrest – and by implication, stop you, investigate you, frisk you, and do everything else short of an arrest. It wasn’t a pretext stop, where they use some minor infraction (typically a traffic violation) to obtain evidence of a larger crime. Instead, they investigated you for a particular misdemeanor and charged you with that misdemeanor (along with the knife they uncovered in connection with that investigation).
If you look at as what you were doing was criminal from the beginning (though you didn’t know it then), and the officers were giving you every chance to be nice guys and not arrest then they were being highly reasonable. Though ignorance of the law, as they say, is no excuse, while you were asserting what you thought was your right to refuse identification apparently ignorant of your criminality, they cut you slack. But once they clearly informed you that you were committing a crime, you should have known that you refusal to identify yourself was unjustified. Once you were actually arrested–and the officer was pleading with you to give you your identity or he would bring you to jail–you should have jumped at the chance to do what was legally required.
It doesn’t seem that the knife / multitool violates any of the ordinances, if I read the blade lengths correctly. It is the only citation given, and will be the only basis of his misdemeanor criminal history. Why, now that we have arrived firmly after the fact, doesn’t the OP just fight that ticket? Am I missing something?
And of course simply shut up (to the judge) about the whole civil liberties angle.
[QUOTE=CannyDan]
It doesn’t seem that the knife / multitool violates any of the ordinances, if I read the blade lengths correctly. It is the only citation given, and will be the only basis of his misdemeanor criminal history. Why, now that we have arrived firmly after the fact, doesn’t the OP just fight that ticket? Am I missing something?
And of course simply shut up (to the judge) about the whole civil liberties angle.
[/QUOTE]
He probably should fight the concealed weapon charge, especially since the cops gave it back to him.
FTR Sierra Madre is an incorporated city in the San Gabriel Valley.
I have met and dealt with many local officers over the years. Most of them are real live and let live types. They would prefer not to arrest you as doing an arrest is more work for them. Here is an actual quote from a San Fernando PD officer to a guy he arrested for being in a fight in front of the police station “Look we don’t mind if you drink or do dope, but do it at home where we don’t have to get involved. If you do it in public, we have to arrest you.” 
I think that Fir na tine nailed it in nine.
Congratulations!
:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
They were. His knife did not violate the local townships codes, and even if it did, it appreas to me to be of doubtful Constitutionality in CA. CA Courts have ruled that once the State regulates something, local townships may not regulate it further. This was for gun laws, not knife laws, but the two are somewhat similar.
[/quote]
Whether or not the knife violated local laws is a factual matter that could be debated in a court and get the charges dismissed. A police officer hasn’t violated your civil liberties just because he’s written you a citation on a charge that later results in a dismissal/acquittal, as long as he had probable cause to arrest or cite you, he was acting appropriately. What happens after that isn’t a police officer’s concern.
[QUOTE=Billdo]
In your second post you say that they could have told you that you were committing a crime immediately upon their first encountering you, and you would have given them your identity then. However, you object to the fact that they didn’t immediately accuse you of a crime, but rather gently investigated two people hanging out in a closed part, and only brought the criminal aspect of it up in the later part of the encounter. If you would have given your identity upon learning that you were committing a crime at the outset, you should have given your identity immediately upon learning you were committing a crime later in the encounter. You were a fool not to do so after they had actually arrested you.
[/quote]
Well, I did reveal everything as soon as he arrested me for real. I didn’t want to reveal my identity until that point because I thought I was innocent…
…but really, like you point out here, I was just ignorant. I understand that now. I was stupid, I acted impulsively, and I got called out for it by some very reasonable and rather forgiving cops.
[QUOTE=CannyDan]
It doesn’t seem that the knife / multitool violates any of the ordinances, if I read the blade lengths correctly. It is the only citation given, and will be the only basis of his misdemeanor criminal history. Why, now that we have arrived firmly after the fact, doesn’t the OP just fight that ticket? Am I missing something?
And of course simply shut up (to the judge) about the whole civil liberties angle.
[/QUOTE]
And this is the really odd part. Surely the officer knew the knife was within legal length, no? He even wrote “2.5 in” on the citation itself. I wonder if he did that deliberately.
Maybe he was trying to cut me some (more) slack, knowing that it could be challenged in court later? Or is there really something illegal about that knife that I’ve yet to understand?
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
The ACLU has a little card that gives advice about what to do in various situations involving the police, I happen to have it handy (and believe it is available somewhere on their website.)
[/QUOTE]
As an aside, I can remember seeing some advice on a leaflet they provided at university (when I studied, not worked there) for gays that stated they should try and get themselves arrested as soon as possible at the slightest hint of trouble, as their rights were much more secure then and the police were under more scrutiny.
[QUOTE=Reply]
And this is the really odd part. Surely the officer knew the knife was within legal length, no? He even wrote “2.5 in” on the citation itself. I wonder if he did that deliberately.
Maybe he was trying to cut me some (more) slack, knowing that it could be challenged in court later? Or is there really something illegal about that knife that I’ve yet to understand?
[/QUOTE]
Beats me! In the immortal words-- er, immortal abbreviation, IANAL. I don’t have the time to try to research a specific matter of local law, or the training to do so reliably enough for you to carry into court.
But if I understand correctly, your ticket is simply and exclusively for the weapon, and it is specifically described as having a 2.5" blade length. So far, the posters here have not found any ordinance that you actually violated (regarding the blade). As was said up-post, an officer can ticket you for something that turns out, upon review by the finder of fact (the court) not to be a crime or a violation. In such a case you would be exonerated. But only if you contest it.
If these are the actual facts, were it me, I’d plead a simple not guilty. My only evidence would be the citation itself. I would not mention, or even hint at, the rest of the scenario.
Maybe the cop made a mistake. Quite possible, given the apparent overlapping jurisdictions and the apparent variety of allowable blade lengths in that area. Or maybe it was indeed a gift to you. Another one. So be happy. Take it – this time. Without further comment.
In a world full of injustice, with people struggling against legitimate oppression, the OPs actions earn…
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
4 rolleyes