Had my first negetive encounter with LEO in Hendersonville ..

[DaveTN]

but if what they do actually violates your rights--

Then you have a bunch of resources available to you. There are lawyers that will be more than happy to take your money and file all the lawsuits you can afford.

A right would be let’s say…. That you can display a communist flag; that is a right. A privilege would be to display it as an avatar on a privately owned forum as long as they allowed it.

My right (in public) would be to point out what a loser you are by doing it. My privilege on a forum (I would hope) would be to post how it disgusts me. See how rights and privileges are different depending where you are?

Edited April 12, 2009 by DaveTN

[Guest Astra900]

but if what they do actually violates your rights--

There are a great many things that violate our rights. There are few things that can be easily done about it. Unless a man has a LOT of expendable income, or is willing to start a war (not me) I find it best to just look for solid ways of evasion/circumvention. I'd love to open carry everywhere I walk. It'll never happen. I SHOULD be able to, as long as I follow the rules. It'll never happen. A sad truth of our world today; Sometimes being right, means you're wrong. It just shows what a state our Union is in.

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil. Know what I mean Verne?

[Guest JLowe]

So because I refuse to cooperate and answer questions some questions that are not germane to the reason for the stop--that automatically makes me an assh*le? I could say the same thing about LE who starts asking questions that have no bearing on the reason for the stop...For example, while it is your business if I have a permit while carrying--it isn't your business where I am going, or what I do when I get there as long as I abide by the law while I am there/going there/returning from there....

Well, if your carrying a loaded firearm without permit, you go to jail.

Case law, or the T.C.A to back this up? I have seen no where that I am required to even identify myself to a LEO unless you have PC or RAS to believe I am about to commit, or am committing a crime. Yes, it is proper to follow "lawful" orders--such as "get out", or "turn around"...but please show me the T.C.A that requires me to answer any questions when I am not suspected of committing a crime.

I don't have to answer LE questions, and AFAIK--and please show me the law if I am wrong--there is NO "stop and identify" statute in this state, which means you can't just roll up and demand my "papers" UNLESS you have RAS that I am about to commit a crime, and even then I am only required to give you my name, address, and telephone number and ID...you can't demand my social security number, you can't detain me for an extended period of time and you can't just search me because you might want to....

Never said that I could. Have faith, after 11+years, I know what I can and can't do.

Now, if there is a "stop and identify" statute-please point to it, and by all means--please provide the T.C.A or case law to back up that I HAVE to answer your "identifier" questions...

You really should read the entire thread before you ask questions or start spouting off about what your required to do and not to do. In the aspect of my answer, there has already been a crime committed and that is the reason for the contact with a LEO. We were not talking about consensual contacts, we were talking about criminal contacts. So, read the entire thread, understand the context of the answer, and then you can feel free to spout off about the actual subject at hand.

[Guest justme]

You really should read the entire thread before you ask questions or start spouting off about what your required to do and not to do. In the aspect of my answer, there has already been a crime committed and that is the reason for the contact with a LEO. We were not talking about consensual contacts, we were talking about criminal contacts. So, read the entire thread, understand the context of the answer, and then you can feel free to spout off about the actual subject at hand.

I have actually--all 202 responses to the OP...the thing here is the OP did NOT commit a crime at the time of the contact. LE was merely responding to a citizen complaint of a MWAG. What happened from there is where we got here. So where is the crime? The contact was not consensual, there was no crime committed, but the treatment of the OP was no less wrong and was way over the line.

Now I would ask again if you would to please show me the statute in Tennessee code that requires me to answer "identifier" questions when I have contact with LE. I am only required to provide identification at a traffic stop or during a detainment...I don't have to answer questions beyond the reason for the stop and I don't have to, nor am I required to tell you where I am going, or what I am going to do when I get there. I would like you to show me the statute(s) if I am wrong.

If I am carrying a gun and LE stops me I will allow them to disarm me, but I will refuse consent to the removal. I would refuse consent to any search or seizure, I would only answer the questions that I was legally required to answer under Tennessee statute, and I would have it on audio. Best advice--don't say anything to a fellow citizen during a stop that you won't be able to successfully defend later in a court or in the media...because there is a better than even chance that since Tn is a single party consent state--that the conversation is being recorded.

So as far as what I have learned from this thread--I'm not spouting off. No crime was committed...therefore the stop should have concluded after verifying the identify of the OP and the status of his permit...

Never said that I could. Have faith, after 11+years, I know what I can and can't do.

I'm sorry--but that does not make me feel better. Just because a LEO has many years in their job does not mean anything. There are so many examples I could give you, but I won't.

The fruit is in how you treat the people, and whether you treat them with decency and respect, and whether you truly--and I mean truly respect the Constitutional rights that apply just as much to you as they do to anyone else, whether a LEO respects it when someone refuses to answer their fishing expedition questions, or whether a LEO tries to intimidate the person into answering, or tries to intimidate a person into submitting to a search after the citizen has already refused consent when the LEO knows that they have no legitimate reason to search, but instead are just on a fishing expedition hoping to find something that will justify the stop and avoid a possible lawsuit...

In the aspect of your answer--even when you are responding to a possible crime--the individual you are interrogating on the scene is not required to answer "identifier" questions, beyond providing their name, and ID. LE has no business trying to intimidate a person into answering questions, or belittling them or threatening them when they refuse...as an example, I provide http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YZaholL8nI

now if that is how LE in general acts when a person refuses to answer their questions--then LE is just way out of line and more needs to be done to hold them accountable. I'm sure that video has been seen several times--but it goes to demonstrate how the people are viewed who refuse to answer questions, or want to know what law, or statute legally obligates them to answer...

by all means if I am wrong then I would like you to show me the statute in Tn. Code that tells me I must answer "identifier" questions, or provide detailed information about where I am going, what I am doing or anything else if LE asks...seriously, if it is there in the code I would like to see it.

Believe it or not I'm not a jacka**...I'm really not. It isn't wrong to expect LE to be held accountable when they mistreat the people--it really isn't.

Edited April 13, 2009 by justme

[Guest JLowe]

I have actually--all 202 responses to the OP...the thing here is the OP did NOT commit a crime at the time of the contact. LE was merely responding to a citizen complaint of a MWAG. What happened from there is where we got here. So where is the crime? The contact was not consensual, there was no crime committed, but the treatment of the OP was no less wrong and was way over the line.

Now I would ask again if you would to please show me the statute in Tennessee code that requires me to answer "identifier" questions when I have contact with LE. I am only required to provide identification at a traffic stop or during a detainment...I don't have to answer questions beyond the reason for the stop and I don't have to, nor am I required to tell you where I am going, or what I am going to do when I get there. I would like you to show me the statute(s) if I am wrong.

If I am carrying a gun and LE stops me I will allow them to disarm me, but I will refuse consent to the removal. I would refuse consent to any search or seizure, I would only answer the questions that I was legally required to answer under Tennessee statute, and I would have it on audio. Best advice--don't say anything to a fellow citizen during a stop that you won't be able to successfully defend later in a court or in the media...because there is a better than even chance that since Tn is a single party consent state--that the conversation is being recorded.

So as far as what I have learned from this thread--I'm not spouting off. No crime was committed...therefore the stop should have concluded after verifying the identify of the OP and the status of his permit...

I'm sorry--but that does not make me feel better. Just because a LEO has many years in their job does not mean anything. There are so many examples I could give you, but I won't.

The fruit is in how you treat the people, and whether you treat them with decency and respect, and whether you truly--and I mean truly respect the Constitutional rights that apply just as much to you as they do to anyone else, whether a LEO respects it when someone refuses to answer their fishing expedition questions, or whether a LEO tries to intimidate the person into answering, or tries to intimidate a person into submitting to a search after the citizen has already refused consent when the LEO knows that they have no legitimate reason to search, but instead are just on a fishing expedition hoping to find something that will justify the stop and avoid a possible lawsuit...

In the aspect of your answer--even when you are responding to a possible crime--the individual you are interrogating on the scene is not required to answer "identifier" questions, beyond providing their name, and ID. LE has no business trying to intimidate a person into answering questions, or belittling them or threatening them when they refuse...as an example, I provide YouTube - Steve Bierfeldt detained and harassed at airport for carrying CASH

now if that is how LE in general acts when a person refuses to answer their questions--then LE is just way out of line and more needs to be done to hold them accountable. I'm sure that video has been seen several times--but it goes to demonstrate how the people are viewed who refuse to answer questions, or want to know what law, or statute legally obligates them to answer...

by all means if I am wrong then I would like you to show me the statute in Tn. Code that tells me I must answer "identifier" questions, or provide detailed information about where I am going, what I am doing or anything else if LE asks...seriously, if it is there in the code I would like to see it.

Believe it or not I'm not a jacka**...I'm really not. It isn't wrong to expect LE to be held accountable when they mistreat the people--it really isn't.

I will say this one more time, in the context of which I was speaking, THERE HAS BEEN A CRIME COMMITTED AND THEREFORE THE CONTACT WITH THE LEO. When I get an extra moment of free time, I will supply you all of the TCA that pertains to failing to comply with lawful orders, interfering with an investigation, interfering with the service of a lawful document, and of course disorderly conduct. All of these will apply at certain points of contact that are not consensual, the aspect from which I was speaking. There is nowhere in anything that you have stated that says that officers can't ask questions. If you know of a Supreme Court ruling that says that I can't ask you where your going and what your doing, then please provide it or if you can find the same already written into law, please provide. I have a feeling that you can't and will not be able to. Its not a violation of your rights as you so claim.

[Guest justme]

I will say this one more time, in the context of which I was speaking, THERE HAS BEEN A CRIME COMMITTED AND THEREFORE THE CONTACT WITH THE LEO. When I get an extra moment of free time, I will supply you all of the TCA that pertains to failing to comply with lawful orders, interfering with an investigation, interfering with the service of a lawful document, and of course disorderly conduct. All of these will apply at certain points of contact that are not consensual, the aspect from which I was speaking. There is nowhere in anything that you have stated that says that officers can't ask questions. If you know of a Supreme Court ruling that says that I can't ask you where your going and what your doing, then please provide it or if you can find the same already written into law, please provide. I have a feeling that you can't and will not be able to. Its not a violation of your rights as you so claim.

Ok, so I think we are both getting somewhat bent out of shape at times over this..

that said, I never said that LE cannot ask the public questions. I said that the public is not required under any Tn. statute that I know of to answer questions posed to them by a LEO...there is a big difference. If you know otherwise please post the statute or court case so I can read it. As for what we say during a field interview/interrogation--the Miranda warning makes clear that "anything you say can/will be used against you in a court of law, and that we do not have to just answer the questions that a LEO might put to us. The thing about the Miranda warning--it is usually given just prior to or just after a physical arrest has been made--but anything you say prior to the warning or after the warning has been issued to you can and most likely will be used against you.

the Disorderly Conduct charge you are talking about falls under 39-17-305. DC is a catchall charge that is most often used against people who OC, or against people that LE has stopped illegally and just need a charge to justify the stop...based on what I have been reading DC is the charge most often used against people who are OC'ing, even though their conduct no where reaches the definition of DC either here or anywhere else.

Interfering with lawful service of papers/interference with an investigation would most likely fall under 39-16-602 which is the Obstruction of Justice statute...now let us discuss how refusal to answer questions from LE meets the definition of "obstruction of justice"...considering there is no requirement in the statutes of Tennessee code which require the people to answer questions posed to them by law enforcement, so how can their refusal to answer questions come up to 39-16-602?

Now let us get to the meet--under what Tn. statute is a person, even in a non-consensual stop required to answer "identifier questions", other than providing enough information to identify the person? Under what Tn. statute is a person required to answer questions during a field interview/interrogation? Refusing to answer questions isn't a crime.

As for asking me "where I'm going and what I'm doing"--you're right, you're perfectly free to ask those questions, I never said you were not--but you shouldn't get pis*ed if someone tells you it isn't your business, or if they start asking you why you want to know...you can ask--but the people don't have to answer, and if they choose to not answer, it should not cause you to get ticked off at them or intentionally try to make things harder on the person or think they are just " ignorantly trying to exercise their rights" like the TSA did to Bierfeldt in the video I included in my previous post...a free society means that we have just as much right to refuse as you do to ask--and if we refuse then LE should respect that.

I never claimed it was a violation of my Constitutional Rights for you to ask--if I did, please show me and I'll fix it.

I said when LE legitimately violates our rights--which occurs in this country quite often I would think--the officers involved, their departments and the corporate entity who employees them should be held accountable civilly, while the officer is also held criminally responsible if possible, ESPECIALLY if they knew or should have known that their conduct was a violation of our Constitutional rights.

Edited April 14, 2009 by justme

[Guest JLowe]

Ok, so I think we are both getting somewhat bent out of shape at times over this..

that said, I never said that LE cannot ask the public questions. I said that the public is not required under any Tn. statute that I know of to answer questions posed to them by a LEO...there is a big difference. If you know otherwise please post the statute or court case so I can read it. As for what we say during a field interview/interrogation--the Miranda warning (does not apply unless you have been charged with or arrested for a crime.) makes clear that "anything you say can/will be used against you in a court of law, and that we do not have to just answer the questions that a LEO might put to us. The thing about the Miranda warning--it is usually given just prior to or just after a physical arrest has been made--but anything you say prior to the warning or after the warning has been issued to you can and most likely will be used against you.

the Disorderly Conduct charge you are talking about falls under 39-17-305. DC is a catchall charge that is most often used against people who OC, or against people that LE has stopped illegally and just need a charge to justify the stop...based on what I have been reading DC is the charge most often used against people who are OC'ing, even though their conduct no where reaches the definition of DC either here or anywhere else. Your point of view

Interfering with lawful service of papers/interference with an investigation would most likely fall under 39-16-602 which is the Obstruction of Justice (not the statute of which I spoke of) statute...now let us discuss how refusal to answer questions from LE meets the definition of "obstruction of justice"...considering there is no requirement in the statutes of Tennessee code which require the people to answer questions posed to them by law enforcement, so how can their refusal to answer questions come up to 39-16-602?

Now let us get to the meet--under what Tn. statute is a person, even in a non-consensual stop required to answer "identifier questions", other than providing enough information to identify the person? Under what Tn. statute is a person required to answer questions during a field interview/interrogation? Refusing to answer questions isn't a crime.

As for asking me "where I'm going and what I'm doing"--you're right, you're perfectly free to ask those questions, I never said you were not--but you shouldn't get pis*ed if someone tells you it isn't your business, or if they start asking you why you want to know...you can ask--but the people don't have to answer, and if they choose to not answer, it should not cause you to get ticked off at them or intentionally try to make things harder on the person or think they are just " ignorantly trying to exercise their rights" like the TSA did to Bierfeldt in the video I included in my previous post...a free society means that we have just as much right to refuse as you do to ask--and if we refuse then LE should respect that.

I never claimed it was a violation of my Constitutional Rights for you to ask--if I did, please show me and I'll fix it.

I said when LE legitimately violates our rights--which occurs in this country quite often I would think--the officers involved, their departments and the corporate entity who employees them should be held accountable civilly, while the officer is also held criminally responsible if possible, ESPECIALLY if they knew or should have known that their conduct was a violation of our Constitutional rights.

Normally I am helpful to those who do not know the entirety of the law, but in your case I am going to make a exception. Your statement allow me to see that there is no winning with you or you coming to see that we LEO's are not out to "get" you. You have a very liberal point of view when it comes to LEO's, but yet a very conservative point of view towards everything else. You are a conundrum unto yourself. I see in the future that you will become just like many other persons who get arrested, then convicted, and wonder why. Their only recourse has always been to claim "conspiracy" and the judge, jury, lawyers, LE, and everybody in between were in cahoots together.

I have never said that no one could not stand up for their rights. I firmly believe that LEO's who violate a persons rights or perform illegal acts, should have proper recourse taken against them. Although I do get sick and tired of LE detractors , I understand that they are there, with their ignorant knowledge of the law, and spout off at the mouth at every chance they get. I can show you more video of citizens committing more crime than you can me of LEO's, but does that matter, no. I can say that LEO's have a lower rate of crime than almost any other profession, does that matter, no. As we are human as well, it only makes the headlines when an officer does wrong, not right. You don't here on the news that today half of a million LEO's went to work today and did their job just fine. So in closing, no, I am not going to provide you with any law in reference to anything. I am going to let you be ignorant. Oh and BTW, Ignorance is no defense in a court of law.

[Guest justme]

Normally I am helpful to those who do not know the entirety of the law, but in your case I am going to make a exception. Your statement allow me to see that there is no winning with you or you coming to see that we LEO's are not out to "get" you. You have a very liberal point of view when it comes to LEO's, but yet a very conservative point of view towards everything else. You are a conundrum unto yourself. I see in the future that you will become just like many other persons who get arrested, then convicted, and wonder why. Their only recourse has always been to claim "conspiracy" and the judge, jury, lawyers, LE, and everybody in between were in cahoots together.

I have never said that no one could not stand up for their rights. I firmly believe that LEO's who violate a persons rights or perform illegal acts, should have proper recourse taken against them. Although I do get sick and tired of LE detractors , I understand that they are there, with their ignorant knowledge of the law, and spout off at the mouth at every chance they get. I can show you more video of citizens committing more crime than you can me of LEO's, but does that matter, no. I can say that LEO's have a lower rate of crime than almost any other profession, does that matter, no. As we are human as well, it only makes the headlines when an officer does wrong, not right. You don't here on the news that today half of a million LEO's went to work today and did their job just fine. So in closing, no, I am not going to provide you with any law in reference to anything. I am going to let you be ignorant. Oh and BTW, Ignorance is no defense in a court of law.

1. I asked you to show me where I am wrong. If I am wrong then please show me the Tn. Law that says that a person is required to answer questions put to them by LE except those as required to identify themselves.

2. I never said that all law enforcement is bad.

3. I never said I am one of those who constantly thinks LE is out to get anyone. You said that. I said that when law enforcement legitimately violates the rights of the people then that officer(s) should be held accountable.

4. You can be upset if that is what you choose to do--but that changes nothing, because at the end of the day there is still no law that requires the people to answer questions or face legal sanctions such as obstruction of justice or disorderly conduct--if there is then please point me to it.

5. Again--if I am wrong, and there is a law in this state that requires the people to answer questions or be charged with obstruction, disorderly conduct or interfering with an investigation, or with any other charge then please show me--I am really interested in seeing it.

I am willing to admit if I am wrong. If I am wrong then please show me the law(s).

Edited April 15, 2009 by justme

[Guest mn32768]

LEOs asking for SSN:

DC Gun Rights Examiner: Breaking News: Federal civil rights lawsuit filed against West Milwaukee

The complaint alleges that police illegally detained, harassed, and arrested Jesus Gonzales without cause in violation of the federal constitution. Further, the complaint alleges that police unlawfully demanded Gonzales' social security number in violation of Section 7 of the Federal Privacy Act, arguably a felony under the Social Security Act at 42 USC 408.

[Troutburger]

Here is an interesting video series.