consensual encounters, investigative detention and arrest

Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by BenjiEDF, Oct 5, 2012.


  1. Is this a fairly accurate video? Any comments from public servants on the forum?

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEv7u7jGYSM&list=PL775FAD785EFBE3C3&index=85&feature=plpp_video"]Three Tiers of Police/Citizen Encounters (Investigative Detentions) - YouTube[/ame]
     

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. Loading...

    Similar Threads Forum Date
    Animal Encounters The Lighter Side Aug 11, 2014
    Looking back at your own LEO encounters before you became an LEO Cop Talk Aug 20, 2012
    response to "close encounters" thread GATE Self-Defense Forum Nov 22, 2011
    close encounters GATE Self-Defense Forum Nov 21, 2011
    Close encounters of the BG kind GATE Self-Defense Forum Jul 19, 2010

  3. Louisville Glocker

    Louisville Glocker Urban Redneck

    2,256
    8
    Yeah, the guy knows what he's talking about. I didn't watch it all the way through, but he sounds right on up through the terry stops and RAS to justify them.

    Heck, it is a police training website, so why would you think it'd be wrong? It isn't just some teen ager making a youtube vid.
     

    #2 Louisville Glocker, Oct 5, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2012
  4. coqui33

    coqui33 NRA Instructor

    321
    0
    I agree about this video and that I agree that LEO training is usually accurate regarding the laws. There are sometimes exceptions, though.

    For example, some agencies in jurisdictions where fed appeals courts have ruled that videotaping police is legal (1st amendment) and that arresting someone for doing so violates the 4th, defy the courts and teach officers the opposite (that videotaping police in public is a felony). They do this in order to immunize officers against 42 USC 1983 lawsuit. (The decision in Kelly v. Carlisle, 2010, suggested that incorrect training in the law gave an LEO qualified immunity.)
     
  5. While the individual officer may have qualified immunity, the individual arrested will obtain a settlement against the municipallity. It makes no sense to train officers to make unlawful arrests.
     
  6. coqui33

    coqui33 NRA Instructor

    321
    0
    Whether the municipality is liable depends on other factors. For example, they might provide evidence that they did not order the arrest and in fact discouraged it. If I had a nickel for every agency written policy that flatly contradicts another written policy of the same agency, thus enabling pick-and-choose enforcement, I would have a tall stack of nickels.

    As to whether it makes sense or not, this is up to the agencies. The very fact that many do it quite openly suggests that some agencies would disagree with you. See, for example, http://www.pixiq.com/article/florida-cops-distributing-false-legal-guidelines

    Here is another example: As of today, about half of the counties in Florida openly defy state pre-emption and prosecute gun-owners based on local ordinances which have been ruled void by the state. In the words of an academy instructor whom I once interviewed, "This is Orlando, not Tallahassee."

    I am not saying that it is a common or long-lasting phenomenon. But when there is a mismatch between culture and law, laws are often misstated by police instructors. The problem goes away when popular culture catches up.

    Personally, I believe that sometime within the next few years a LEO will be laughed out of federal court when his lawyer argues that he is did not know that videoing police in public was legal. Until then, we are stuck with the mismatch.

    [If you are interested, I would be happy to provide examples of similar mismatches throughout U.S. history. FWIW, my favorite examples (on which my dissertation was based) are mismatches about "racial" classification along the Gulf coast in the early 1800s. Anglo legislators declared all African Americans as "Negroes" and thus ineligible to carry weapons, while Creole police instructors distinguished between "Coloured" and "Black" and taught recruits that the former were exempt from anti-Black laws.]
     
    #5 coqui33, Oct 5, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2012
  7. SCmasterblaster

    Millennium Member

    14,383
    61
    It seems accurate to me.
     
  8. Sam Spade

    Lifetime Member

    13,793
    86
    I don't like the use of "arrest" and would prefer "in custody", since that's the term courts use for the purposes of Miranda. I can "arrest" someone, that is charge him with a crime and require him to appear in court without ever tripping the Miranda trigger.

    But mostly, I'm fine with the video.
     
  9. Thanks guys, it was a really interesting video... just wanted to run it by the forum.
     
  10. Immunity normally applies to both the government entity and the officer. It's a lot harder than people think to be successful. It's a VERY high standard to prove.

    With that said, most agencies may settle for the simple fact it's financially sensible. It will cost far less to pay out a few thousand versus paying for months/years of litigation costs wrapped in a state and/or federal lawsuit.

    Good video. He explained it quite well. I saw a couple of officers get pretty rattled during a preliminary hearing when they couldn't articulate the reason they cuffed two suspects when a glock was found in their vehicle (along with a strong odor of weed).
     
    #9 SgtScott31, Oct 11, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2012

Share This Page

Duty Gear at CopsPlus