In a recent decision, Illinois v. Lidster, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a traffic stop, which resulted in a DUI conviction.
The police were seeking info concerning a hit-and-run fatality that had occurred a week earlier at that location. One of the drivers who was stopped was arrested and convicted for drunk driving.
What degree of privacy do you desire when driving - or walking - down the street?
The majority states: “information-seeking highway stops are less likely to provoke anxiety or to prove intrusive. The stops are likely brief. The police are not likely to ask questions designed to elicit self-incriminating information. And citizens will often react positively when police simply ask for their help as ‘responsible citizen[s]’ to ‘give whatever information they may have to aid in law enforcement.’”
I generally oppose most stops, including this one. I do not believe police ought to stop citizens in order to inform them of their ability to provide information concerning crimes they may have witnessed.
I acknowledge that the validity of consent for search is a discrete issue. But I do not believe recent caselaw sufficiently acknowledges the coercive effect of a policeman’s mere presence in obtaining information once a citizen is stopped.
This case read narrowly may seem like a minor intrusion. But in the current law-and-order climate, I consider it emblemmatic of the increasing intrusions into the private lives of citizens.
Note: this case originated in dropzone’s town. Say drop - wasn’t that a new dent on your car in late August 1997?
Perhaps this might be better under IMHO, but what I posted it here, due to the “legal” nature.
I won’t have time at work to read this, but for a first pass over your post I’d have to agree that this is sort of disappointing. Just by being in public, I am not implicitly authorizing that I be questioned about my knowledge. I can’t even imagine why one would say so. This is made even more extreme by the air of any police encounter. I haven’t broken a law, other than traffic violations (parking issues) in at least three years, yet the intrinsic fear of police is definitely ingrained in me. The few police encounters I’ve had definitely show me, anecdotally, that even as an otherwise closed individual about many things there is an overwhelming impulse to not just say “no” to police, even though it is quite likely that this is always your best option whether you are doing something illegal or not.
Their power to mess up your life even for a short period of time is too large, in my opinion. (This doesn’t mean I necessarily want to restrict it; I am speaking from a “is it worth it to talk to cops when they ask”-cost/benefit point of view.)
The police are paid to enforce laws, not be your friend. I respect cops, on the whole, and appreciate, in general, the work they do, but it pays to remember what their job is: enforcing laws. If a cop stops you for anything, I remember the voice of my lawyer from the past: don’t volunteer information, and end the conversation to leave as soon as you can. The only exception would be when you, as a concerned citizen, seek the police out. Unless reporting a robbery, try to do so on the most neutral ground possible (your yard, not your house; the police station, not your car; etc).
A friend of mine was once detained for questioning (no overt threats were made, nor was he an obvious suspect) and he also reported to me that he felt quite intimidated even though he knew he did nothing wrong. Perhaps others disagree on this point, I don’t know, my comments are obviously anecdotal.
I don’t fear cops, but I know what their purpose is, and I don’t intend to hang around them if I can help it.
I disagree. In this case the officers were seeking information regarding crime. I would compare this to an officer responding to suspicious behavior complaint, and while responding encountering a man staggering down the street. While that man may not have been the person they were looking for, the police have a duty to investigate. In the case cited the police were at/near the location of the hit and run, at/near the same time of day. It’s perfectly reasonable to assume that someone driving along that stretch at the same time a week later may have been in the same place the prior week, and may in fact have material information to provide about a known crime.
This is a significant difference from a consent stop, in which officer are seeking to determine if you’re breaking a law for which they have no articulable suspicion. I also agree that consent searches weigh heavily in favor of the police. In never fails to amaze me how few people know they have the ability to say no to such a search.