Can an officer Order you to Sit on the Ground?

[tranquility]

If an officer has a reasonable suspicion a person has or is committing a crime, he has a right to detain. The only limitation as to the amount of force he can use to effect the detention is deadly force. Of course, if the detainee were to assault the officer to the point where he fears, even deadly force would be allowed.

What super-genius Dillion is basing his most happiest hopes upon are the number of interweb videos where a person is stopped at an immigration checkpoint. There, the border patrol has no suspicion, let alone a reasonable one, that would allow a detention. When you see the videos, the awesome freedom fighter gains great satisfaction from not telling the border patrol agent he is a citizen. I suppose because it is because that would admit he...well admit the reality of who he is. Awesome, super job. You win. Here? Not so much.

If a police officer detains you, do what he orders. If you don't, you will be properly arrested. While you may have a legal case later, on THIS day he will use all the tools at his disposal to get you to comply. Some of those tools are quite unpleasant.

 

[tranquility]

Lose the debate? Hardly. You are simply wrong and you don't even understand the basics of what you are arguing. It is super that when your errors are pointed out in detail, you reply with some overwrought rubbish unrelated to the reality of what is happening. That others forcefully point out the danger of your misperceptions of the law, that is not bullying, but a true concern for any thinking you might be correct.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Lose the debate? Hardly. You are simply wrong and you don't even understand the basics of what you are arguing. It is super that when your errors are pointed out in detail, you reply with some overwrought rubbish unrelated to the reality of what is happening. That others forcefully point out the danger of your misperceptions of the law, that is not bullying, but a true concern for any thinking you might be correct.

There is a specific CA code on this very subject:

When any person named Dillon, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of an evaluation facility designated by the county, designated members of a mobile crisis team provided by Section 5651.7, or other professional person designated by the county may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody and place him or her in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Social Services as a facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation.

The facility shall require an application in writing stating the circumstances under which the person's condition was called to the attention of the officer, member of the attending staff, or professional person, and stating that the officer, member of the attending staff, or professional person has probable cause to believe that the person is, as a result of mental disorder, a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled. If the probable cause is based on the statement of a person other than the officer, member of the attending staff, or professional person, the person shall be liable in a civil action for intentionally giving a statement which he or she knows to be false.

 

[Dillon]

There is a specific CA code on this very subject:

Hey, You Are Guilty, of practicing medicine without a license in CA. ?

 

[Dillon]

There is a specific CA code on this very subject:

the person shall be liable in a civil action for intentionally giving a statement which he or she knows to be false, You Are Guilty!

 

[Dillon]

Lose the debate? Hardly. You are simply wrong and you don't even understand the basics of what you are arguing. It is super that when your errors are pointed out in detail, you reply with some overwrought rubbish unrelated to the reality of what is happening. That others forcefully point out the danger of your misperceptions of the law, that is not bullying, but a true concern for any thinking you might be correct.

you believe that if it gives you comfort

 

[tranquility]

you believe that if its gives you comfort

I believe you've used that same..um..comeback more than once. Perhaps you should get some new material. The nuns I knew used to use, "As you say."

 

[Dillon]

Lose the debate? Hardly. You are simply wrong and you don't even understand the basics of what you are arguing. It is super that when your errors are pointed out in detail, you reply with some overwrought rubbish unrelated to the reality of what is happening. That others forcefully point out the danger of your misperceptions of the law, that is not bullying, but a true concern for any thinking you might be correct.

Name calling is cyberbullying and you know it. when you start name calling you lose even if you tink you are correct, period.

 

[You Are Guilty]

the person shall be liable in a civil action for intentionally giving a statement which he or she knows to be false, You Are Guilty!

Sorry, I object to the CA civil code, thus without my consent, I am not bound by this liability.

 

[Dillon]

Sorry, I object to the CA civil code, thus without my consent, I am not bound by this liability.

there is never any liability, if no one is actually injuried or damaged and no ones legal rights were violated, so you are correct in this case.

stay cool and have a nice day

 

[tranquility]

Name calling is cyberbullying and you know it. when you start name calling you lose even if you tink you are correct, period.

Ironic much?

Oh, the "name calling" was "super genius". It is only when a person understands the context is it not a compliment. That context is the person so named wrote what you wrote in this thread. It is only when THAT knowledge is combined with the term that it becomes obviously false. I don't know if a false compliment is "name calling" as much as a rhetorical device to show the nature of the context, but, as you say.

 

[Dillon]

Ironic much?

Oh, the "name calling" was "super genius". It is only when a person understands the context is it not a compliment. That context is the person so named wrote what you wrote in this thread. It is only when THAT knowledge is combined with the term that it becomes obviously false. I don't know if a false compliment is "name calling" as much as a rhetorical device to show the nature of the context, but, as you say.

wow, i dont understand (agree with) the context of your posting.

 

[tranquility]

Now, for a final teaching to those who reach this point and feel a bit dirty, let me add a personal story back in the short time I was a cop and my thinking. It may not have been correct, but, I hadn't studied more than at the academy at the time.

The city was getting a large number of burglaries in a certain section of the city. They were all happening, it seemed, around noon. The certain section of the city had flood control channels behind the houses that were close to and connected to one behind the local high school. It was thought students were leaving at lunch through the channels and committing the burglaries. We didn't know, but, that was what was supposed.

Now, around noon in the area of the city with the high recent incidence of burglaries, I was on routine patrol. The day was incredibly hot and humid. It was unseasonable and near a hundred. One of the days you don't get out of your air conditioned car unless you have to. Then, I saw a man walking down the sidewalk, in a TRENCH COAT, looking like he had something under his arm (under the coat).

What should I do here? We have a spate of crime in this area that has been happening at this time and this guy is hiding something under his coat. His COAT! No one was wearing a coat today.

1. Did I have probable cause to arrest him? Did I have reasonable suspicion to detain him for a reasonable investigation? Would my Sargent be upset if I didn't at least behave as any citizen has a right to and walk up and talk with him? (But not stop him if he declines and leaves. Aka consensual encounter.)

As I approach, it becomes obvious something is under his arm and concealed by the coat. I think of Terry v. Ohio and the facts there and believe it a good match--kinda. But, I just talk. Ask him his name and why he is here. He tells me a name and that he was coming from a friend's house and points up the street. I ask him his friend's name. He says he "thinks" it is John. I query as to how unusual it is one does not know one's friend's name. He replies it is because he just met him. I ask which house does John live in and he again points up the street with an answer, "Somewhere up there, I don't really remember."

2. Did I have probable case to arrest him? Did I have reasonable suspicion to detain him for a reasonable investigation? Is this still a consensual encounter where he could leave if he wanted?

Now I get to the meat of the encounter and ask him what is under his coat. He replies, "Nothing" and then, to show me it was nothing he starts to raise his elbows away from his sides. I am about 6 feet away from him as his arms start to go up when, suddenly, he spins the side with the item away from me and with his right hand he reaches into his coat in the area of the arm pit. Adrenaline surges in me, time slows down and all I really remember is repeating "Fire Truck, Fire Truck, Fire Truck" repeatedly in my mind. (There may have been a few less letters, but my memory is foggy as this happened over 25 years ago.)

3. What should I have done? Even if I pulled a firearm, because I was so close, I would not have time to determine if there was a risk to me before I fired. I have all the information I'm going to get right now and had to decide.
-------------------

1. I know I didn't have enough facts to lead to probable cause and arrest here. It's not illegal to wear a coat inappropriately in an area and time were burglaries are occurring. Nor is it illegal to have something under that coat. In fact, while suspicious, I don't think I had enough to detain if he wanted to continue on his way. Hunches are not enough. But, I did know that it was appropriate to approach him and talk.

2. I know I didn't have enough facts to lead to probable cause and arrest him here either. Sure, his story is suspicious and there is no longer just a suspicion something is under his arm but it is obvious, but not enough for probable cause. Reasonable suspicion? Probably. I think I had enough to detain if needed. He, while deceptive, was still cooperating so I didn't need to make that call. But, I don't believe I would have just allowed him to leave right then.

3. I rushed him and slammed him to the ground and then jumped up and drew my firearm. Then I see what was under his arm that he was trying to hide and, when combined with my attack, broke his ribs. A large bottle of whiskey. Paramedics were called and he was taken to the hospital. Use of force investigation had a woman in the house we were in front of tell the same story, including the fact she thought he had spun back to draw a gun from a shoulder holster. Cleared by my agency and victim did not sue even though he was not arrested. Pity for both I didn't order him to sit on the ground before this point.






3.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

I see what was under his arm that he was trying to hide and, when combined with my attack, broke his ribs. A large bottle of whiskey.

Was the whiskey OK?

I had an interesting encounter with the local police a few years ago.

It was July 3, and the city that abuts my town was going to have fireworks. I had just removed a bottle of beer from the fridge when my wife said she would love to see the fireworks, but it was probably too late. Before I had the chance to open the beer, I told her that I knew of a spot on a bridge that goes over the highway near our house where you could see the fireworks. I put the unopened bottle back in the fridge and we got in my Jeep and headed towards the bridge, one mile away.

We got to the overpass, and I let my wife out to watch. I headed down the other side to park. This is an overpass in the middle of a cloverleaf ramp. I went to the end of the median strip and turned around. As I was coming back the other way, my wife called that she had left her cell phone in the Jeep. I stopped, and she ran across the road to retrieve it. I made another U-turn and decided I'd just wait in the breakdown lane next to the sidewalk on the bridge. Wifey said "No, go park", so away I drove. I parked on the grass and walked back to join her.

In the meantime another car had stopped nearby. I assumed he wanted to watch the fireworks as well but didn't stop in a place where he could see them.

When the fireworks were done, we walked back to the Jeep and got in. I made another U-turn at the end of the median strip and after finishing the turn saw the state trooper who had been on the bridge behind me turn on his blue lights. I immediately stopped and he turned around, pulled in behind me, walked up to the Jeep and asked me to get out.

Now, I had just finished a course in Mass Search and Seizure that was taught by a sitting Superior Court Judge, and was about to be appointed to the appeals court, so I KNOW that in Massachusetts, the police cannot issue an exit order due to a traffic infraction.

So I did what any good third year law student (3L) should do:

I got out of the Jeep and did exactly what he said. (Step to the rear of the vehicle, place your hands on the hood of the cruiser and spread your leg).

(A 1L would have argued with the officer. A 3L knows you argue with the judge)

As it turns out, the person in the other car had called in a possible domestic violence situation. After a long legal analysis, I determined that if the caller had identified himself, the police had enough reasonable suspicion to issue the exit order. If the caller did not identify himself, the officer did NOT have adequate reasonable suspicion to issue the exit order, and had violated my rights.

We went home and I drank my beer.

The moral of the story is that you don't know what the police knows. If I had asserted my "rights", I could have ended up in a world of hurt.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Was the beer OK?