But, the LAW doesn't change.
The issue is not with the letter of the law, it's in the intimidation tactics.
Bully for you. Then you also know that they are more often than not, NOT stretched to the limit.
True, and even in the worst jurisdiction I have met a fair number of good officers. It's also really easy to trigger bad responses with some fairly innocent replies. Your own home town appears to be pretty good, but the court system is still an issue.
How came you by this alleged "knowledge?" Reading stories on the internet? Blogs? Newsmedia? Objective scholarly research? How?
First hand experience. Depending on how I dress I have gotten cops to confide in me with things that if would ruin them if made public. I've been the guy in a suit and tie, the guy at the boat house holding the cabin cruiser, and the bum under the bridge. I have been ordered to "Go home", told I would be arrested for merely being seen in the county, and been threatened with obstruction for helping the wrong people or making a factual statement. It's funny when the bum me is recognized wearing a suit and tie and the questions that gets. The BS is not isolated and is increasingly becoming more problematic in more and more jurisdictions. I might even be the next person that's not cooperating with your citizens contact. I doubt it though, your cozy little town looks pretty decent. The same can't be said for the courts there.
One can always find examples of actions taken to the extreme - including examples of actions NOT taken out of concern that the action MIGHT be improper, unlawful, or outside of procedure.
This used to be a valid claim in most places, statistically speaking. In more and more jurisdictions today it's nothing more than a joke, and it's getting worse. Much worse.
I assume that you are referring to a detained person's "no thanks" when asked by an officer for consent to a search. Well, if an officer believes that a refusal to consent equals probable cause, then that officer forgot the basic academy and is a dunderhead in need of re-training big time. I've seen many denials of consent and no incidents of an officer going "ballistic" as a result. Maybe we're a little more level-headed out here on the west coast than where you're from. Dunno.
Here's the crux of the matter. Actually I was thinking more about even talking to an officer at all, when a citizens contact is attempted. But a search refusal works as well. The most probable response to "no thanks" is not to immediately detain, but to imply through intimidation that it's going to be the worst mistake ever made not to comply. If the subject is intimidated enough not to just leave, or try to argue, then the odds are something will get turned into reasonable suspicion. Even cops who attempt to keep their narrative clean will often resort to confiscating evidence, and losing it, witness intimidation, and other clearly illegal acts to cover up mistakes that weren't that bad to begin with. I've lost some of my own equipment, never to be seen again.
Maybe it's the late hour, but I am at a loss to figure out what you were trying to say with this.
This was referring to a certain type of tactic that starts out as a citizen contact that doesn't want to cooperate. Only the average person cannot merely assume they are free to go because the officer might have some reasonable suspicion unknown to you based on a call or some other events you know nothing about. If you try to leave under such circumstances you risk a charge for resisting arrest, obstructing, failure to comply with lawful orders, which you thought were request, etc. So this tactic involves avoiding any clarification of whether a detention is actually in effect, and only making it appear like it might be. Thus drawing out an argument from which reasonable suspicion is likely to result. In fact explicitly claiming such a refusal is reasonable suspicion, without ever actually making detention official. Cops are officially allowed to lie to accomplish this. The strength of the tactic is that the legal grounds for reasonable suspicion can be chosen after the fact, if explicit characterization can be avoided at the time. Occasionally cops get emotional and mess up and detain and arrest people before they get reasonable suspicion. This often triggers all kinds of nefarious acts to make the issue go away.
You either have consent or you don't. If the officer searches anyway and LIES about having consent, then it's not a lawful search whether he finds something or not.
True, but in practice this is precisely how the burden of proof gets shifted. It completely turns the tables on the burden of proof once in court. As if being forced into court, even when found factually innocent, is not punishment enough for most people. Even worse is how badly being found not guilty can still ruin careers, as if the odds of an innocent persons odds of not being convicted is anything but miniscule when cops testify against them.
That the letter of the law is fair on the surface does not imply the results are the same.
