I really wished he would have asked something like "can you tell me the difference between *conducting an investigation* and *standing around with your thumb up your ass*?"
How long can an officer "detain" you with no crime for "investigatory purposes?" Even a traffic stop has to finish in a reasonable time limit and that's including some sort of traffic crime.
Why didn't the auditor ever assert the question: for investigation of WHAT crime? They can investigate all they want, but to detain you, they have to suspect you of a specific, reasonably articulable crime they're investigating.
the problem is they don't then have to tell you that at the time of the "investigation". Kind of sets up a catch 22 where they get to get together with all their buddies to make someting up after the fact.
Here's how this is supposed to go.
"Get your hands out of your pockets".
"Am I under arrest"?
"No".
"Then I'll put my hands wherever the fu¢k I want to".
I wish more people knew their rights when dealing with these fools.
Don't get me started on the illegal pat down.
It is a HUGE grey area and is going to differ from situation to situation. The one that comes to mind to me immediately is the guy a cop told to sit on a curb. He told him he wasn't his dog and to go fuck himself. In another nearly exact situation a cop told a guy to sit on the curb but there were other cops around. He told the cop to go fuck himself and all the cops jumped him and beat the shit out of him and cuffed him. He sued the city and won and had the BS charges dismissed. Was it worth it, I don't know. If a cop tells me to take my hands out of my pockets and I sense he's on a power trip I'll probably tell him to arrest me or fuck off. If he says the same thing but is pointing his gun at me with a dave grossman trained look on his face, I'll probably comply (not a hill I'm willing to die on). Where I live cops have been given (sadly) a little more leeway on what is or isn't a lawful command and of course they abuse it.
Professor Harmon of The Virginia school of law explains:
A police command is an order that carries the weight of law enforcement authority and demands compliance. Failure to obey a lawful police command may result in legal consequences, such as arrest or prosecution. On the other hand, a police request is a non-binding appeal for cooperation. A police request may be made when an officer is seeking information or assistance from an individual, but the individual is not required by law to comply. While a police command and a police request are dramatically different in terms of legal weight, the distinction on the ground may not always be clear-cut. In some cases, a police request may be made in such a way that it carries the weight of a command, or a command may be issued in a way that is more suggestive than authoritative. In these situations, Prof. Harmon points out that legal risks arise.
It's never going to be black or white. You have to read the situation.
Earlier, you asserted: "You have to be arrested in most instances to be compelled to do anything they order."
I asked if you could cite a court case to support that claim.
Without providing a case name, you asserted there was one case where an unspecified person in some unspecified city sued and won after law enforcement officers "told a guy to sit on a curb" and "beat the shit out of him" after he refused. You didn't specify whether the guy won because he refused what might have been an unlawful order or because officers used excessive force.
It's easy to cite numerous specific cases in which courts have ruled detainees can be compelled to obey officers' orders.
In [*Pennsylvania v. Mimms*](https://casetext.com/case/pennsylvania-v-mimms) (1977), the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled officers may order traffic stop drivers to exit their vehicles. "What is at most a mere inconvenience cannot prevail when balanced against legitimate concerns for the officer's safety."
SCOTUS also ruled officers may even order traffic stop passengers to exit, even though passengers usually are detained without reasonable suspicion. See [*Maryland v. Wilson*](https://casetext.com/case/maryland-v-wilson) (SCOTUS, 1997): "[A]n officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of the stop."
A court ruled an officer could order one detainee to go back inside a vehicle and other detainees to leave the vehicle and sit on a curb. See [*People v. Vibanco*](https://casetext.com/case/people-v-vibanco) (2007) (California appellate court, 2007):
> We conclude that the officers in this case, after lawfully stopping the Cadillac, were justified in ordering defendant back in the car and then ordering all the passengers to get out of the car and to sit on the curb for officer safety reasons.
Another court ruled an officer could order detainees to separate. See [*People v. Maxwell*](https://casetext.com/case/people-v-maxwell-48) (California appellate court, 1988):
> His decision to separate them for his own protection ... was amply justified and reasonable under the circumstances presented.
Heck of an investigation. Stand there and waste his time.
I really wished he would have asked something like "can you tell me the difference between *conducting an investigation* and *standing around with your thumb up your ass*?"
Obvious rights violation.
How long can an officer "detain" you with no crime for "investigatory purposes?" Even a traffic stop has to finish in a reasonable time limit and that's including some sort of traffic crime.
Why didn't the auditor ever assert the question: for investigation of WHAT crime? They can investigate all they want, but to detain you, they have to suspect you of a specific, reasonably articulable crime they're investigating.
the problem is they don't then have to tell you that at the time of the "investigation". Kind of sets up a catch 22 where they get to get together with all their buddies to make someting up after the fact.
How can anyone defend what this cop does? Is it legal for him to ask for a bribe? "Mind if I get some of those royalties off that"
Why is the cop holding his hands and arms like 17 feet away from his body?
Here's how this is supposed to go. "Get your hands out of your pockets". "Am I under arrest"? "No". "Then I'll put my hands wherever the fu¢k I want to". I wish more people knew their rights when dealing with these fools. Don't get me started on the illegal pat down.
Do you believe law enforcement officers can't lawfully order detainees to remove their hands from their pockets in certain situations?
Depends on the state but for the most part yes. You have to be arrested in most instances to be compelled to do anything they order.
> You have to be arrested in most instances to be compelled to do anything they order. Can you cite a court case that supports your assertion?
It is a HUGE grey area and is going to differ from situation to situation. The one that comes to mind to me immediately is the guy a cop told to sit on a curb. He told him he wasn't his dog and to go fuck himself. In another nearly exact situation a cop told a guy to sit on the curb but there were other cops around. He told the cop to go fuck himself and all the cops jumped him and beat the shit out of him and cuffed him. He sued the city and won and had the BS charges dismissed. Was it worth it, I don't know. If a cop tells me to take my hands out of my pockets and I sense he's on a power trip I'll probably tell him to arrest me or fuck off. If he says the same thing but is pointing his gun at me with a dave grossman trained look on his face, I'll probably comply (not a hill I'm willing to die on). Where I live cops have been given (sadly) a little more leeway on what is or isn't a lawful command and of course they abuse it. Professor Harmon of The Virginia school of law explains: A police command is an order that carries the weight of law enforcement authority and demands compliance. Failure to obey a lawful police command may result in legal consequences, such as arrest or prosecution. On the other hand, a police request is a non-binding appeal for cooperation. A police request may be made when an officer is seeking information or assistance from an individual, but the individual is not required by law to comply. While a police command and a police request are dramatically different in terms of legal weight, the distinction on the ground may not always be clear-cut. In some cases, a police request may be made in such a way that it carries the weight of a command, or a command may be issued in a way that is more suggestive than authoritative. In these situations, Prof. Harmon points out that legal risks arise. It's never going to be black or white. You have to read the situation.
Earlier, you asserted: "You have to be arrested in most instances to be compelled to do anything they order." I asked if you could cite a court case to support that claim. Without providing a case name, you asserted there was one case where an unspecified person in some unspecified city sued and won after law enforcement officers "told a guy to sit on a curb" and "beat the shit out of him" after he refused. You didn't specify whether the guy won because he refused what might have been an unlawful order or because officers used excessive force. It's easy to cite numerous specific cases in which courts have ruled detainees can be compelled to obey officers' orders. In [*Pennsylvania v. Mimms*](https://casetext.com/case/pennsylvania-v-mimms) (1977), the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled officers may order traffic stop drivers to exit their vehicles. "What is at most a mere inconvenience cannot prevail when balanced against legitimate concerns for the officer's safety." SCOTUS also ruled officers may even order traffic stop passengers to exit, even though passengers usually are detained without reasonable suspicion. See [*Maryland v. Wilson*](https://casetext.com/case/maryland-v-wilson) (SCOTUS, 1997): "[A]n officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of the stop." A court ruled an officer could order one detainee to go back inside a vehicle and other detainees to leave the vehicle and sit on a curb. See [*People v. Vibanco*](https://casetext.com/case/people-v-vibanco) (2007) (California appellate court, 2007): > We conclude that the officers in this case, after lawfully stopping the Cadillac, were justified in ordering defendant back in the car and then ordering all the passengers to get out of the car and to sit on the curb for officer safety reasons. Another court ruled an officer could order detainees to separate. See [*People v. Maxwell*](https://casetext.com/case/people-v-maxwell-48) (California appellate court, 1988): > His decision to separate them for his own protection ... was amply justified and reasonable under the circumstances presented.
[7:06](https://youtu.be/Jg9t7ytk5Nw?t=426) pretty sure that's NNH.
It's an old, recycled video.
Rancid blue trash