Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

consensual encounters, investigative detention and arrest

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

  1. BenjiEDF


    Jun 15, 2012
    Is this a fairly accurate video? Any comments from public servants on the forum?

    [ame=""]Three Tiers of Police/Citizen Encounters (Investigative Detentions) - YouTube[/ame]
  2. Louisville Glocker

    Louisville Glocker Urban Redneck

    Dec 17, 2010
    Louisville, KY
    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.
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2012

  3. coqui33

    coqui33 NRA Instructor

    Jul 16, 2009
    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.)
  4. molar


    Apr 8, 2007
    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.
  5. coqui33

    coqui33 NRA Instructor

    Jul 16, 2009
    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,

    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.]
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2012
  6. SCmasterblaster

    SCmasterblaster Millennium Member

    Sep 24, 1999
    Hartford, Vermont
    It seems accurate to me.
  7. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Staff Member Lifetime Member

    May 4, 2003
    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.
  8. BenjiEDF


    Jun 15, 2012
    Thanks guys, it was a really interesting video... just wanted to run it by the forum.
  9. SgtScott31


    Jan 17, 2011
    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).
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2012