Why didn’t the FIRST officer to respond to the 911 call simply ask “Sir, what is your relationship with this little girl?”
Once he replied “I am her grandfather”, the situation should have ended right there.
Not true! Whenever some military guy comes to my house and asks me if he can have a piece of the meatloaf and spend the night, you can bet that I send him packing.
I think what I’ll do next time is speak in pig latin. There is much discrimation against the latino-porcine speakers in this country.
In the OP it is said that the police were asking a bunch of questions. One would conjecture that this was one of the questions.
I believe that the person refused to give such information, standing on his right to not have to answer questions. And by the way, he was not her grandfather, he was the godfather of the child’s mother. I don’t know if that makes any legal difference for the situation in the OP.
Not sure if this is a “woosh” or not, but the first officer asked exactly that.
I tried that once.
My brother in law was NOT amused. 
But it would have, if the cops were doing their jobs. And I’m puzzled by all the folks here who think that the cops are so fine and upstanding that the grandfather should have of course politely assumed that they wouldn’t do their jobs.
The first officer did ask that question. But I’m not sure why you and others on this thread are sure saying “I’m her grandfather” would have ended the situation immediately. You don’t suppose (given they’re responding to a call about “suspicious activities”) they might try to ask further questions verifying that the guy is telling the truth?
-FrL-
That would I think depend. Part of the cop’s job is to assess the demeanor of the persons identified in the context of the situation and determine if anything further is warranted.
I strongly suspect that simply answering truthfully would have had them thinking ‘this is not a real emergency. The caller was over-reacting. We’ll take his ID for the report and move on’, but of course one cannot prove it - other than by pointing out that they let him leave in spite of his rather belligerent attitute (probably because they correctly perceived that his anger did not indicate he was really a suspicious character or a danger to the little girl).
I realise there is but tenuous parallel to my experience, but given that I had established 1. The police were at the wrong address;
2. I was not the person they were seeking;
and further, to have dispatch imply I was lying and subsequently open my home to search leads me to think " I'm her granda"- when in fact he was not, in the inarguable sense-would have lead to possible lengthy interrogation and feeling of being wronged on his part.The way I see it is, cops get a call from an idiot saying he saw a black man with a small white child acting suspiciously. Cop sent to check it out. Probably should have approached the man apologetically , but at this point the only offense is that “She said this as though it were the most natural thing in the world for police to investigate, as though my race and Ty’s, in and of itself, was reason enough to stop and question me.” (Except that wasn’t the reason she questioned him, she is responding to a call, she has to question him). Now here’s where the real problem develops. The guy is miffed obviously, and justifiably. But he didn’t say she was rude, just robotic. You know, like cops tend to be. So far, the only person who might have done something wrong is the caller, and even that is arguable, unless they did just call in just because they saw a black man and white girl and that made him decide it was suspicious. So the cop tells him why she’s there. Asks him the questions that a cop checking on a call like that should. They guy answers “none of your business”. And I can assure you that at that point, it doesn’t matter if they were both black, both white, or an Eskimo and a Spaniard. The situation would have played out exactly the same as it did. If you don’t cooperate with a cop (which is your right) they will invariably ‘cop it up’ (which is theirs, as long as they don’t falsely arrest, harass, or beat you)
…And I am very quick to anger when I hear about police oppression, racism, and abuse of power which is still unfortunately a big problem in this country.
Are you saying that a policeman’s job is to let someone walk away as soon as the person says “Am I free to go now?” Well that would indeed be a boon to criminals!
I don’t understand what you mean by this sentence.
It is if they don’t have a reasonable suspicion that there was actually any wrongdoing, as in this case.
I mean that if the police had been doing their jobs, they should have let the guy go, without further questioning, once he made it clear that he didn’t wish to be detained and they didn’t have any grounds for detaining him against his will. By asking them if he was free to go, he was assuming that they would do their job in this regard. Assuming that the cops will do the job they’re supposed to do is not disrespectful to the police.
Question for the legal types and police:
Could the cops have arrested the guy or taken him in until the kids parents could be contacted? Could they have taken him and the kid to the station and called CPS?
If he refuses to answer to show that he legally allowed to be watching the child, and their job is to protect, what could they have done?
What would have happened to the police if they took the guy in, say for suspicion of kidnapping?
Could it have played out like this:
Cops - “Sir, who are you and what is your relation to the child?”
Godfather: “Here is my ID. Am I free to go?”
“What is your relation to the child?”
Godfather: “Am I Free to go?”
Cops - “Sir, since you won’t answer regarding your relationship, we are going to need to take responsibility for this child. We will take the child down to the station and contact Child Protective Services. We will release the child to the parent or legal guardian.”
No. Absolutely not.
In order to arrest, they need probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. They had none.
They’re not. Best practices tell you if the call comes in the cops go out. Assumption is the mother of all screw-ups.
As far as the scenario, the cop had a duty that ended as soon as she got his identification. She took it further than she needed to, causing her partners on her beat/zone/whatever, to think “hmm, this is taking longer than it should, I’m gonna check it out” he arrives to the scene of a man getting “belligerent” with a female colleague and goes right into defensive mode which means that no matter what, the citizen is wrong and the cops right. It was an asshole move all the way around.
[quote=“Chronos, post:192, topic:472348”]
It is if they don’t have a reasonable suspicion that there was actually any wrongdoing, as in this case.
[quote]
And you know this how? If the officer just happened to drive by, see a man and child walking peacefully, and interrogated them, I might agree with you. But here the officer is responding to a call. I would like to know what information the police officer had been given by the dispatcher before saying she had no reasonable suspicion.
And if the person had really been taking a child without authorization, I could see how this would look in court when the police officer gets questioned about this.
Q: What did you do when you confronted the suspect?
A: I asked him his name and he gave me a name.
Q: Did you verify that this was really his name?
A: The suspect refused to show identification.
Q: What happened then?
A: The suspect asked “Am I free to go?” so I let him leave.
Q: You mean, on the basis of one answer and five seconds interview time, you felt confident that you had enough information to determine whether or not a crime was being committed??? (:rolleyes: from the attorney doing the questioning)
Of course, it would be a huge advantage for our overloaded court system if people could be trained to detect guilt or innocence based on one question and five seconds of looking at the suspect. The trial half of a Law and Order episode could be squeezed into 5 minutes.
Bailiff: All rise for Judge Jones.
Judge Jones: the defendant will state his name for the record.
Defendant: John Smith, your honour.
DA McCoy: In light of this testimony, the state releases to drop all charges!
-
When you fly El Al into Israel you are interviewed. Amazingly people with no plans to blow the plane up tend to answer in several consistent manners and people who do have ill intent tend to send off some suspicious signs. Of course some people may send off suspicious signs without having ill intent, but how a basic question is answered tells you something. Refusing to answer would be one of those flags that would not reassure.
-
OTOH Arnold - there is a difference between someone in custody on suspicion and trying to evaluate if there is any cause for suspicion. In other words, the officer in your dialog responds to the lawyer that her job was to determine based on the information that she was legally entitled to whether or not there was any reason to suspect that there was a crime. Not to prove that there is no crime. That information, his offered identification, and the observable behavior of the child, was what she was legally entitled to and did not reach the level of reasonable suspicion. Yes he was free to go. (And again if she was still concerned based on his behavior, she was free to follow him. Or … well see below.)
3)Bricker the other part of the question remains unanswered: A child is with an adult who makes no statement of having any relationship to the child, refuses in fact to claim any relationship to the child. At that moment is not that child considered a child who is unsupervised and wandering the street? Would not the police be in fact obligated to take such a child into protective services?
I think that this guy was looking for his own Rosa Parks moment.
IOW, “Wanting to write a blog, I gave her my name, address and birthdate but refused to answer any other questions.”
This guy exercised his rights to be an a-hole, and the officers exercised theirs. As has been said many times upthread, the situation would have been over in seconds if he had just said that he was babysitting his grand/god-daughter. Instead, he was looking for a personal story of oppression. He could have taught his granddaughter a lesson about how police officers are there to protect her, but instead…
So, in the event that she is actually abducted, it wouldn’t take much for the abductor to convice her that talking to the cops would be a bad idea.
Now let’s take the alternate situation: Instead of stonewalling, the grandfather tells the responding officer that he’s babysitting his grandchild. The officer goes on about his business. The grandfather then explains to the child that the officer was just making sure that she was safe. The child learns the lesson that police officers are there to serve and protect. If that child later gets abducted, she feels safe going to the police when she sees the oportunity.
Oh, but that would be giving up his rights. So name-and-rank only is the way to go.
There’s also the 911 call that he was probably obliged to respond to.
THIS kind of thinking is why officers have such a hard time protecting people. Because people like you teach their children that officers are some kind on non-human enemies; and that talking to them is the same as snitching… and snitching is treasonous.
Do you think that a 911 call that didn’t wouldn’t have been responded to?
What behavior? Responding to a 911 call?
A 911 call.
So she’s supposed to determine that in 5 seconds? “Here’s my name and address Am I free to go?” Even Sherlock Holmes took more time than that to solve a case.
You mean should have been free to go? Or do you mean that the police were breaking the law when they told him “you can’t go until you finish answering our questions?”
If the police officer said “sure you can go, but I will be tailing you”, I somehow doubt that this would have made the blogger in question happier. In fact I would be willing to bet money that he would have viewed it as even more intrusive than the police asking him a few more questions. In any case, several people seemed to be concerned about the police using their time efficiently and not wasting it. In there interests of efficiency, it would be better to ask him ten more minutes of questions than tail him for an hour, wouldn’t it?