Virginia State Police Encounter - positive!

[Keykutter]

Well, if you guys want to throw suspicion upon yourselves in the name of your civil or constitutional rights, go for it.

You wonder why cops get attitudes with no reason. You may know there is no reason, but the way your acting is most certainly gonna put a cop on edge because he really doesn't know your just exercising your rights with bravado.

So you found an author you agree with and now he's your Guru. Good luck with that!

I myself have nothing to hide and care not what some LEO finds out about me cause whatever it is, it's not illegal and I'm certainly not gonna be a wiseass proving I am within my rights telling him to take a hike, in maybe not quite the same words.

You guy's crack me up.

KK

[NavyLCDR]

Well, if you guys want to throw suspicion upon yourselves in the name of your civil or constitutional rights, go for it.

EXCUSE ME?!?! I'm casting suspicion upon myself because I am choosing to engage in a behavior that is the fundamental basis of all Constitutional rights (the right to unreasonable search and seizure)?!? Wow. You really never did pay any attention to the Oath of Enlistment, did you?

It's thinking like that that is exactly why America is one step away from becoming a police state.

I would suggest you read what the US Supreme Court has to say in regards to your "throwing suspicion upon ourselves" statement:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=460&invol=491

FLORIDA v. ROYER, 460 U.S. 491 (1983)

Second, law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen, or by offering in evidence in a criminal prosecution his voluntary answers to such questions. See Dunaway v. New York, supra, at 210, n. 12; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S., at 31 , 32-33 (Harlan, J., concurring); id., at 34 (WHITE, J., concurring). Nor would the fact that the officer identifies himself as a police officer, without more, convert the encounter into a seizure requiring some level of objective justification. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 555 (1980) (opinion of Stewart, J.). The person [460 U.S. 491, 498] approached, however, need not answer any question put to him; indeed, he may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S., at 32 -33 (Harlan, J., concurring); id., at 34 (WHITE, J., concurring). He may not be detained even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds for doing so; and his refusal to listen or answer does not, without more, furnish those grounds. United States v. Mendenhall, supra, at 556 (opinion of Stewart, J.).

[Keykutter]

Doesn't sound like a case that the cop would have in his pocket. Looks to me like a judge would have to find this out, because you, among others have said numerous time, cops do not know the law verbatim.

What's it gonna take for him to let you go when you declined to participate? A Magistrate once you got to jail? Maybe in the morning once you spent the night in jail? Maybe you'll get away with it.

Two minutes of my time is not worth me finding out how it ends otherwise. You seem to me like a very scared little man.

Don't worry, relax, let it happen, it will be over soon. Don't worry, it won't hurt. Trust me. :):):)

KK

[Treo]

Doesn't sound like a case that the cop would have in his pocket. Looks to me like a judge would have to find this out, because you, among others have said numerous time, cops do not know the law verbatim.

What's it gonna take for him to let you go when you declined to participate? A Magistrate once you got to jail? Maybe in the morning once you spent the night in jail? Maybe you'll get away with it.

Two minutes of my time is not worth me finding out how it ends otherwise. You seem to me like a very scared little man.

Don't worry, relax, let it happen, it will be over soon. Don't worry, it won't hurt. Trust me. :):):)

KK

I’m not sure why this isn’t getting through to you but a police officer cannot just stop you on the street and begin to question you. Technically he’s free to engage anyone in conversation of course but he cannot legally force you to remain and answer his questions unless you consent to the interaction.
Of course this assumes that he has no reasonable suspicion based on clearly articuable facts that you have or are about to commit a crime. He can’t detain you for just walking down the street in an area known for drug traffic.

A traffic stop is clearly a given (FWIW In Colorado I have noticed that the last two State Patrol guys that stopped me walked up to my car introduced/ identified themselves, told me immediately why they had stopped me and told me then and there that I would or would not be cited)you are being detained but you are not required to consent to a search nor to incriminate yourself ( I actually got out of a ticket because the cop didn’t have radar and I refused to answer “Do you know how fast you were going?”

A cop cannot arrest you for refusing to allow a search of your vehicle. He cannot use your refusal as probable cause.

A cop cannot arrest you for refusing to answer his questions. In some states he can arrest you for refusal to identify yourself and every state I’ve ever been licensed in requires you to present your DL on demand while driving but a cop cannot take your refusal to answer his questions as probable cause either.

Far more people talk themselves into jail than ever go there by keeping their mouth shut.

[NavyLCDR]

You seem to me like a very scared little man.

This coming from the person who advocates, "Just do what the officer says and don't make waves?"

PRICELESS!

Doesn't sound like a case that the cop would have in his pocket.

The officer should know this. It is the very first limit upon their authority and the very basis of all of citizens' rights. Without the 4th amendment protection against unlawful detainment there would be no real freedom of speech, freedom of religion or right to bear arms because the police could simply detain you for whatever reason they made up and thus prevent you from exercising any of the other protected rights.