"No Officer, I'm not High"

RalphInCA said:
:confused: The Police Officer was just doing his job. I'm glad he is actively looking for people who are breaking the laws.
Click to expand...
Hey it is his body. Justification for abortion why not drugs and prostitution?:rofl:
 
RalphInCA said:
Wouldn't bother me. It's just a simple question. It's not like I'm being asked to give blood.
Click to expand...

Would you? Why not? What do you have to hide? You're not on any drugs, right?
 
Unit74 said:
Coming from the legal field, I'm positive you are not in said field. :yes:

On another forum, we call this wild shot in the dark FUD....Fear, uncertainty and doubt. Usually called FUD when the poster want to sound like they are in the know and they make affirmations to the validity of their post. Yet, the post is so full of FUD, it's unreasonable to believe there is truth to any of it at all.

To start with, just google Terry v. Ohio and go from there for a refresher on the T-stop as we call it in our circles.
Click to expand...

Are you "coming from the legal field," or are you a criminal defense attorney?

The reality is that law enforcement is responsible for the FUD surrounding their profession, and much of it is justified. While I would agree that there is no reason to be paranoid, the question asked of the OP was directly related to the possibility that the he was engaged in criminal activity. While the officer may have been joking, there was no way for the OP to make that determination immediately prior to responding to the question. I would argue that a LEO who jokes about someone's possible involvement in criminal activity is, at the very least, unprofessional.

I believe that the vast majority of LEOs are good people. Maybe I'm wrong. Regardless, there's really no way to determine whether the LEO who's asking questions is a friend or foe, and until that is known, it is more prudent under the law to assume the latter and provide limited information without appropriate legal counsel. It's tough to stop digging the hole once you start, and it's even harder to get yourself out of it.


JKG
 
RalphInCA said:
:confused: The Police Officer was just doing his job. I'm glad he is actively looking for people who are breaking the laws.
Click to expand...

So you're pretty confident that you don't break any laws?


JKG
 
RalphInCA said:
Wouldn't bother me. It's just a simple question. It's not like I'm being asked to give blood.
Click to expand...

How do you know what he is looking for? Thats the problem the naysayers [literally] have with answering.

Just say no and move on, even if you are. How's he gonna know? He did not ask if you were drunk. If he asks a follow-up - yeah, thats the time to get a little suspicious.

But whats wrong with, "I'm sorry Officer, I'm not sure whats up but I'd just as soon not answer any more questions, thank you."

You'll know pretty quick. Plus, anyone who can say that is not high.

I swear thats the REAL reason the Supreme court wants one to 'specifically and clearly' invoke the right to remain silent. Drunks and stoners can't do it clearly . . . and if you can, you're not probably the suspect.
 
ARFlyer said:
Anyone ever been asked if you were high after visiting your eye doctor?

Today I was standing in line, at a local sub shop, behind a police officer and got asked that question. It surprised me and the people standing in line.

My reply was that I just got done with an eye appt. Thankfully the guy had a sense of humor as he replied with "That explains why your face is in your phone like your 80".
Click to expand...

What color is your skin?

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/..._arrest_black_man_sitting_in_skyway_video.php
A cell phone video posted to YouTube this week shows a St. Paul police officer roughing up a black man who was apparently doing nothing more than sitting in the skyway, waiting to pick up his kids.

At 9:43 a.m. on January 31, police were summoned to the skyway in downtown St. Paul's First National Bank Building on a report of a man loitering. The video footage shows an officer asking the then-27-year-old man to provide his name.

"Why do I have to let you know who I am? Who I am isn't the problem," the man calmly replies.

"Because that's what police do when they get called," the officer responds.

The man explains he was sitting in the skyway waiting to pick up his kids at 10 o'clock from the New Horizon Academy school. He says he had gotten off work at Cossetta at 9 a.m.

He tells the officer, "First off, that's a public area. And if there's no sign that [says], 'This is a private area, you can't sit here,' no one can tell me I can't sit here."

"The problem is..." the officer says, before she's cut off.

"The problem is I'm black. That's the problem," the man interjects. "It really is because I didn't do anything wrong."

Though that exchange was more conversational than confrontational, things escalate when another officer, Bruce Schmidt, arrives on the scene.

"What's up brother?" the man says to him.

"You're going to jail. You're not my brother," Schmidt replies.

At that point, the officers force the man to put his hands behind his back. A struggle ensues, during which he's tased.

"Can somebody help me?" he screams. "That's my kids right there, my kids are right there!"

After he's restrained, the man, understandably upset, calls the officers "racist mother****ers" and says, "I didn't do anything wrong, I didn't break any laws and you tase me? That's assault."​
 
Last summer I was driving with my wife from San Antonio to Chicago. In Arkansas we both noticed an unusual number of cars pulled over along about a 50 mile stretch of interstate. I wasn't worried as I had the cruise control set for the speed limit and I was wide awake/alert. After passing about the tenth car pulled over, lo and behold, a cop pulls me over. He seemed friendly enough and started out by asking where I was headed and for what reason, yada yada yada. He finally explained my being pulled over was because he had observed me crossing the rumble dohickeys marking the edge of the shoulder when I switched lanes to move farther away from the shoulder with the pulled over vehicle and state trooper. He suspected I was fatigued and dozing off. Complete and utter BS. I wonder how many of those other vehicles were pulled over on similar pretexts to fish for something to write up or confiscate.
 
The OP is lucky he wasn't choked to death for having dilated pupils.
 
People who fear police are those who have a reason to fear police. 99% of the cops out there are good, honest people doing a job that could not be stomached by the majority of society.

But the media latches on to a bad apple and paint the canvas with a calibrated firehose, as you have latched on to. But that's typical really. What is seen on on TV must be indicative of all of society because it was on the news and must be true.

And backed by a DOJ and Executive Office which blatantly usurps the laws as written for their own agenda, those who have borne the weight of national persecution are also the same ones you call on to save you from the scurage of life and protect you in your time of need.

Here is some food for thought....

This thug who asked Andrew if he was high observed Andrew and noted something odd; something consistant with a CNS stimulant; dialed pupils.

He asked him if he was high. Is that unreasonable given he was in fact, in a public place, the cop had a right to be there and there was absolutely no custodial questioning? If Andrew had said he was high, should the cop not investigate further to determine if he was in fact under the influence of an illegal substance? Is that not what police are asked to do given t eh facts presented by Andrew.

Yet, Andrew gave a perfectly valid answer and give the facts presented, ordered his turkey, BLT or Tuna sandwich and carried on with his day. He was not searched, cuffed, detained, involuntarily moved from one place to another or any other actions taken against him.

If Andrew had not have answered and used the typical anti-establishment phraseology, "Am I being detained?" With the cop, I have serious doubts he/she would do anything. You see, while there are really no rules of engagement for the people of this nation, LEOs have case, after case, after case law which says how they must proceed. It's like a huge flow chart that is remarkably confusing, many times has multiple routes and they can be held accountable for choosing the wrong direction. That's why it's so easy to sue the police. Not even the best cop does it right Ll the time. We call that being human.

Yet, being human for LE means liability. Being human for everyone else means, well, nothing. Oops. My bad. Sorry. All those don't work in the policing environment.

After all, the majority of thefts, robberies, muggings, burglaries, auto thefts.....well you get the picture. They are generally in support of drug usage. Lock up the druggies, slow down the crime.

So, did the cop do anything wrong by asking if he was high? Was he " out of line" by asking him? In your jurisdiction, would you expect your police to arrest someone high on dope in public? Isn't that what you expect of them?

My suggestion would be for you to contact your local department and do a ride a,one before you beat them up for being rights violating, knuckle dragging robots for the big machine. What you see will surprise you, that I'm sure of.





JGoodish said:
Are you "coming from the legal field," or are you a criminal defense attorney?

The reality is that law enforcement is responsible for the FUD surrounding their profession, and much of it is justified. While I would agree that there is no reason to be paranoid, the question asked of the OP was directly related to the possibility that the he was engaged in criminal activity. While the officer may have been joking, there was no way for the OP to make that determination immediately prior to responding to the question. I would argue that a LEO who jokes about someone's possible involvement in criminal activity is, at the very least, unprofessional.

I believe that the vast majority of LEOs are good people. Maybe I'm wrong. Regardless, there's really no way to determine whether the LEO who's asking questions is a friend or foe, and until that is known, it is more prudent under the law to assume the latter and provide limited information without appropriate legal counsel. It's tough to stop digging the hole once you start, and it's even harder to get yourself out of it.


JKG
Click to expand...
 
Unit74 said:
Coming from the legal field, I'm positive you are not in said field. :yes:

On another forum, we call this wild shot in the dark FUD....Fear, uncertainty and doubt. Usually called FUD when the poster want to sound like they are in the know and they make affirmations to the validity of their post. Yet, the post is so full of FUD, it's unreasonable to believe there is truth to any of it at all.

To start with, just google Terry v. Ohio and go from there for a refresher on the T-stop as we call it in our circles.
Click to expand...

I never claimed to be "in the legal field." I claimed to be a former Police Officer, which included a certain amount of legal training, mainly in how to use the law to achieve the goal of catching criminals. This was in the early 1990s.

We were specifically trained in how to word requests. Like instead of saying "may I look in your trunk" we would say "I'm going to look in your trunk, okay?" The former is clearly a request, the latter is a request that sounds to the untrained like a statement without an "opt out."

Feel free to tell me specifically where I'm wrong. Not in case law, in police tactics.
 
Unit74 said:
People who fear police are those who have a reason to fear police. 99% of the cops out there are good, honest people doing a job that could not be stomached by the majority of society.

But the media latches on to a bad apple and paint the canvas with a calibrated firehose, as you have latched on to. But that's typical really. What is seen on on TV must be indicative of all of society because it was on the news and must be true.

And backed by a DOJ and Executive Office which blatantly usurps the laws as written for their own agenda, those who have borne the weight of national persecution are also the same ones you call on to save you from the scurage of life and protect you in your time of need.

Here is some food for thought....

This thug who asked Andrew if he was high observed Andrew and noted something odd; something consistant with a CNS stimulant; dialed pupils.

He asked him if he was high. Is that unreasonable given he was in fact, in a public place, the cop had a right to be there and there was absolutely no custodial questioning? If Andrew had said he was high, should the cop not investigate further to determine if he was in fact under the influence of an illegal substance? Is that not what police are asked to do given t eh facts presented by Andrew.

Yet, Andrew gave a perfectly valid answer and give the facts presented, ordered his turkey, BLT or Tuna sandwich and carried on with his day. He was not searched, cuffed, detained, involuntarily moved from one place to another or any other actions taken against him.

If Andrew had not have answered and used the typical anti-establishment phraseology, "Am I being detained?" With the cop, I have serious doubts he/she would do anything. You see, while there are really no rules of engagement for the people of this nation, LEOs have case, after case, after case law which says how they must proceed. It's like a huge flow chart that is remarkably confusing, many times has multiple routes and they can be held accountable for choosing the wrong direction. That's why it's so easy to sue the police. Not even the best cop does it right Ll the time. We call that being human.

Yet, being human for LE means liability. Being human for everyone else means, well, nothing. Oops. My bad. Sorry. All those don't work in the policing environment.

After all, the majority of thefts, robberies, muggings, burglaries, auto thefts.....well you get the picture. They are generally in support of drug usage. Lock up the druggies, slow down the crime.

So, did the cop do anything wrong by asking if he was high? Was he " out of line" by asking him? In your jurisdiction, would you expect your police to arrest someone high on dope in public? Isn't that what you expect of them?

My suggestion would be for you to contact your local department and do a ride a,one before you beat them up for being rights violating, knuckle dragging robots for the big machine. What you see will surprise you, that I'm sure of.
Click to expand...


Well said. Don't waste too much time trying to explain yourself when it comes to the LE Side, they believe and hate what they want. And I have recommended ride alongs several times here on this forum. I think they be scurrred!! Yup
 
Witmo said:
Last summer I was driving with my wife from San Antonio to Chicago. In Arkansas we both noticed an unusual number of cars pulled over along about a 50 mile stretch of interstate. I wasn't worried as I had the cruise control set for the speed limit and I was wide awake/alert. After passing about the tenth car pulled over, lo and behold, a cop pulls me over. He seemed friendly enough and started out by asking where I was headed and for what reason, yada yada yada. He finally explained my being pulled over was because he had observed me crossing the rumble dohickeys marking the edge of the shoulder when I switched lanes to move farther away from the shoulder with the pulled over vehicle and state trooper. He suspected I was fatigued and dozing off. Complete and utter BS. I wonder how many of those other vehicles were pulled over on similar pretexts to fish for something to write up or confiscate.
Click to expand...

I will bet if you looked, every one of those pulled over cars were from out of state like yours. Typical asset forfeiture trap.
 
Corpsmaide said:
Well said. Don't waste too much time trying to explain yourself when it comes to the LE Side, they believe and hate what they want. And I have recommended ride alongs several times here on this forum. I think they be scurrred!! Yup
Click to expand...

I don't hate cops, I was one. BTW, the part II of the video I posted is presented by a veteran police detective, and his very first statement is that everything the attorney said about not talking to police is 100% correct.

In private police talk all the time about how if they want to they can find something to arrest anyone for at any given time. I have been in that conversation myself a few times. Why provide the rope for that?
 
An asset forfeiture trap set up and run by the 1% bad apples. I hear the NYPD is on an informal strike just standing around in warm buildings while the city goes on its business. Joke will be on them when everyone realizes they ain't needed and aren't missed. Spare us the protect and serve crap the sc has ruled the cops have to do no such thing. Thug tax collectors for the king is all they are. Except in some places where they behave more like an occupying army then tax collectors. Funny that those places are starting to treat them like an occupying army. Guess who is going to win?
 
No disrespect intended, but if you were a cop, you should have know what a Terry Stop is. Of course, it's been a few years, though. The search is for weapons. And you must have articulable facts to support the search for weapons, e.g., observed, bulges, reaching, etc.

LEOs cannot just go dig in your pockets on fishing expedition, and the facts of Andrews post is that it was drug related. Thus, he could not have gone into his pockets to look for drugs. Absent any other facts relating to weapons, Andrews pockets are secure.

A precursory frisk for " officer safety" is currently disallowed with no supporting facts.

bullwinkle said:
I never claimed to be "in the legal field." I claimed to be a former Police Officer, which included a certain amount of legal training, mainly in how to use the law to achieve the goal of catching criminals. This was in the early 1990s.

We were specifically trained in how to word requests. Like instead of saying "may I look in your trunk" we would say "I'm going to look in your trunk, okay?" The former is clearly a request, the latter is a request that sounds to the untrained like a statement without an "opt out."

Feel free to tell me specifically where I'm wrong. Not in case law, in police tactics.
Click to expand...
 
Corpsmaide said:
Well said. Don't waste too much time trying to explain yourself when it comes to the LE Side, they believe and hate what they want. And I have recommended ride alongs several times here on this forum. I think they be scurrred!! Yup
Click to expand...

Typical us-n-them and our position is indefensible so don't try...
 
If you can't maintain when you're talking to a cop, you're too high. :rofl:
 
Corpsmaide said:
Well said. Don't waste too much time trying to explain yourself when it comes to the LE Side, they believe and hate what they want. And I have recommended ride alongs several times here on this forum. I think they be scurrred!! Yup
Click to expand...

Yep, you cops are just a different breed of humans too complex for mere civilians to understand. And you wonder why cops are targets.:nonod:
 
The reality is "Rule of Law" is a mistake. Only anarchy can produce a peaceful society. Law will always become corrupted.
 
Corpsmaide said:
Well said. Don't waste too much time trying to explain yourself when it comes to the LE Side, they believe and hate what they want. And I have recommended ride alongs several times here on this forum. I think they be scurrred!! Yup
Click to expand...

Right, because it is so difficult and complex to drive around and bully citizens all day in the name of the "law," and then hide behind the Supreme Court ruling that you have no obligation to actually protect citizens if the **** hits the fan.

Or in other words: "I can't defend my position, so I won't try."
 
Unit74 said:
No disrespect intended, but if you were a cop, you should have know what a Terry Stop is. Of course, it's been a few years, though. The search is for weapons. And you must have articulable facts to support the search for weapons, e.g., observed, bulges, reaching, etc.

LEOs cannot just go dig in your pockets on fishing expedition, and the facts of Andrews post is that it was drug related. Thus, he could not have gone into his pockets to look for drugs. Absent any other facts relating to weapons, Andrews pockets are secure.

A precursory frisk for " officer safety" is currently disallowed with no supporting facts.


Click to expand...

Of course I know the purpose of a Terry stop. It's to check for weapons for "officer safety". No offense, but you should know that in the real world Terry is often a pretext to look for other items.

In the scenario I described, where the suspect said "yeah, I'm high", the officer would have RAS that a crime was committed, and could move on to a Terry stop for his safety.

If during the T-stop, he noticed a thick baggy in the suspect's pocket, he could use that knowledge along with the statement by the suspect that he is high as probable cause to expand the scope of the search and "dig in his pockets." Of course the more sure way would be to get a warrant, but why bother a judge and take the time?

His investigation has enough PC to validate the search, especially since once he finds the baggie of pot he can write in his report that in the initial report he "detected a strong odor of cannabis on the suspect's person." True or not, it's subjective and unverifiable that he did not, so he is safe putting that in there.

If the baggie doesn't have pot in it but instead is full of something else, no harm no foul, let the guy go or keep fishing...I'm sure we can find something if we look hard enough. Say, is that your car over there?

No offense, but I know exactly how this game is played, I used to have a season pass.
 
Sir, that may have worked in the 90s, but you'd at minimum today have the evidence suppressed and if it can be shown you knowingly used this mentality, you would be facing a tort claim.

As for the RAS as you call it, you again, cannot go fishing in his pockets. He's either under arrest or not. Your facts indicate your creating a defacto arrest. Terry is not, I repeat, is not your right to go fishing. You said a thiick baggy? Well, you just sunk your entire "case" if you will. Is a Baggie a weapon permissible to search for under Terry?

I'm sorry sir, but you are coloring so far outside the lines in today's court cases with what you think is allowable, you probably end up getting fired by your agency if you were still an LEO. And I mean that seriously. With what you have discribed, a motion to suppress would have to be granted.

Your quoted post below is not just FUD, it's outright Alex Jones material.

Your opinions are appreciated and I always love a great civilized debate such as this. It's a good memory jog and spurs critical thinking for sure.:yes:

bullwinkle said:
Of course I know the purpose of a Terry stop. It's to check for weapons for "officer safety". No offense, but you should know that in the real world Terry is often a pretext to look for other items.

In the scenario I described, where the suspect said "yeah, I'm high", the officer would have RAS that a crime was committed, and could move on to a Terry stop for his safety.

If during the T-stop, he noticed a thick baggy in the suspect's pocket, he could use that knowledge along with the statement by the suspect that he is high as probable cause to expand the scope of the search and "dig in his pockets." Of course the more sure way would be to get a warrant, but why bother a judge and take the time?

His investigation has enough PC to validate the search, especially since once he finds the baggie of pot he can write in his report that in the initial report he "detected a strong odor of cannabis on the suspect's person." True or not, it's subjective and unverifiable that he did not, so he is safe putting that in there.

If the baggie doesn't have pot in it but instead is full of something else, no harm no foul, let the guy go or keep fishing...I'm sure we can find something if we look hard enough. Say, is that your car over there?

No offense, but I know exactly how this game is played, I used to have a season pass.
Click to expand...
 
What about this guy? Is he a real policeman or a social worker with a badge? Can we learn something from this guy?


An officer who has spent 17 years patrolling one of America's worst areas has found a way to keep the peace that focuses less on arrests, and more on helping those who have fallen on the most difficult of times.
Deon Joseph, or the Sheriff of Skidberry as he is known to many in the area, works on Skid Row, the Los Angeles neighborhood known for its overwhelmingly high homeless population, with some 2,000 people sleeping on the streets every night, and where drugs are drug addicts are all around.
He is less concerned with arrests however than with keeping the order by helping those in the community, preferring to do his rounds on foot and not in his squad car as he checks on the homeless and drug addicts, referring to them all as 'sir' or 'ma'am' to show them the respect they do not get anywhere else, and passes out hygiene kits to make sure they are staying clean. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nse-not-focusing-arrests-never-fired-gun.html
 
Gary F said:
What about this guy? Is he a real policeman or a social worker with a badge? Can we learn something from this guy?


An officer who has spent 17 years patrolling one of America's worst areas has found a way to keep the peace that focuses less on arrests, and more on helping those who have fallen on the most difficult of times.
Deon Joseph, or the Sheriff of Skidberry as he is known to many in the area, works on Skid Row, the Los Angeles neighborhood known for its overwhelmingly high homeless population, with some 2,000 people sleeping on the streets every night, and where drugs are drug addicts are all around.
He is less concerned with arrests however than with keeping the order by helping those in the community, preferring to do his rounds on foot and not in his squad car as he checks on the homeless and drug addicts, referring to them all as 'sir' or 'ma'am' to show them the respect they do not get anywhere else, and passes out hygiene kits to make sure they are staying clean. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nse-not-focusing-arrests-never-fired-gun.html
Click to expand...

It is interesting how the UK press comes here and looks for the best in America to report on, while our own press looks for the worst.
 
Our press only wants the shock value news. If your not appalled by it, they don't run it. There isn't any ratings in bunnys and butterflies.
 
Maxmosbey said:
It is interesting how the UK press comes here and looks for the best in America to report on, while our own press looks for the worst.
Click to expand...

Do a net search for "Deon Joseph," the officer named in that story and you will discover that his work is covered in U.S. media like NPR, Huffington Post, LA Weekly, Newday, CNN, and a bunch of others.
 
I am fully aware that most police officers are straight up guys/gals. The problem I have is that they won't cull their own nuts. Instead they rally behind the bad ones instead of running their arses off. I will never volunteer information to any person who has the power to take what I say and put me in jail. In the same situation as the OP, I know I have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, I wouldn't even reply to the police officer. He can make his own assumption.
 
mikeinbama said:
The problem I have is that they won't cull their own nuts.
Click to expand...

The problem I have is that they won't correct their training until a court orders them to do it right. Working the system to see how far they can push it instead of doing the right thing is just wrong.
 
Unit74 said:
Sir, that may have worked in the 90s, but you'd at minimum today have the evidence suppressed and if it can be shown you knowingly used this mentality, you would be facing a tort claim.

As for the RAS as you call it, you again, cannot go fishing in his pockets. He's either under arrest or not. Your facts indicate your creating a defacto arrest. Terry is not, I repeat, is not your right to go fishing. You said a thiick baggy? Well, you just sunk your entire "case" if you will. Is a Baggie a weapon permissible to search for under Terry?

I'm sorry sir, but you are coloring so far outside the lines in today's court cases with what you think is allowable, you probably end up getting fired by your agency if you were still an LEO. And I mean that seriously. With what you have discribed, a motion to suppress would have to be granted.

Your quoted post below is not just FUD, it's outright Alex Jones material.

Your opinions are appreciated and I always love a great civilized debate such as this. It's a good memory jog and spurs critical thinking for sure.:yes:
Click to expand...

Ah, you claim that all my information is BS, then tell me how much you appreciate my opinions? You must be an attorney. :lol

LEOs have much more latitude now than they did when I was an officer. That's one of the reasons I get so PO'ed about this stuff.
 
Unit74 said:
No disrespect intended, but if you were a cop, you should have know what a Terry Stop is. Of course, it's been a few years, though. The search is for weapons. And you must have articulable facts to support the search for weapons, e.g., observed, bulges, reaching, etc.

LEOs cannot just go dig in your pockets on fishing expedition, and the facts of Andrews post is that it was drug related. Thus, he could not have gone into his pockets to look for drugs. Absent any other facts relating to weapons, Andrews pockets are secure.

A precursory frisk for " officer safety" is currently disallowed with no supporting facts.
Click to expand...


You need to get out more . . . . the conclusions in this response are laughable.

A police officer is going to search you if he stops you for any period of time REGARDLESS of what you do or say. Especially at night. Especially in certain parts of town. More especially involving certain persons they KNOW are criminals in the way that you know what streets to not drive down at night in your own home town. . . .
 
Maxmosbey said:
It is interesting how the UK press comes here and looks for the best in America to report on, while our own press looks for the worst.
Click to expand...

They do the best and the worst. They can give an amazing amount of detail. A few years ago a college student drowned in the pool. The local paper only gave minimal information and no photos. The Daily Mail had pages of information including her history of seizures when she lived in another state and many photos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top