police refuses to tell me why i was pulled over and got arrested

[justalayman]

But not every violation of criminal law is classified as a crime.



I took a quick look at the Criminal Procedure Law and while I couldn't find "reasonable suspicion" defined I did find the definition of probable cause (referred to as "reasonable cause to believe") and the term "offense" is used in the definition NOT "crime" (see CPL 70.10 (2)).

I would assume that if reasonable suspicion is specifically defined in the CPL then the same terminology is used.

so based on your position I can be pulled over for breaching my contract with my cable company?

SCOTUS has been defining RS for a long time. It involves a crime.

 

[justalayman]

But not every violation of criminal law is classified as a crime.

.

I think you have that backwards. Not every crime is a violation of criminal law but yes, every violation of criminal law is in fact a crime. Otherwise, the police would have no power to act since all of the governments rights of detention are based upon a person committing a crime.


but hey, don't bother with what I say.

"Reasonable suspicion" is information which is sufficient to cause a reasonable law enforcement officer, taking into account his or her training and experience, to reasonably believe that the person to be detained is, was, or is about to be, involved in criminal activity. The officer must be able to articulate more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch' of criminal activity." (Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 27 [20 L.Ed.2nd 889, 909].)

 

[Stressed About]

police would have no power to act since all of the governments rights of detention are based upon a person committing a crime.

Just a quick chime in and maybe I'm totally wrong, but police stop us at checkpoints to check for DUI's. Not everyone is committing a crime that is stopped at THOSE

 

[TigerD]

ok so i got pulled over and i asked why.. he said he would tell me when i gave him my information.. i said tell me what i did and ill give you my info.. he refused to tell me what i did.. then reached in my car trying to get my information
so i said dont touch me and tried to close my window but he forced my window down
he then opened my door and tried getting me out of the car.. thats when backup arrived and they arrested me for failure to comply.. i had a video of all this and they deleted it

this happened on long island nassau county it was hempsted police

Since the other posters devolved into quibbling about a meritless point: Yes, you were as wrong as wearing white after Labor Day. Not partially, not slightly - wrong. If failure to comply is all you have been charged with, you are getting off lucky. Rolling up the window on the officer could have gotten you an assault on a police officer charge in some places. In other it could have gotten you shot dead.

Talk to your attorney and only your attorney. If you don't have one, get one.

DC

 

[justalayman]

Just a quick chime in and maybe I'm totally wrong, but police stop us at checkpoints to check for DUI's. Not everyone is committing a crime that is stopped at THOSE

that is something (which I happen to disagree with) that is allowed under exceptions to reasonable suspicion. It is an administrative detention based on the welfare of the general public. Since it is not specific to any individual, the courts have decided that it is an allowable stomping on our Constitutional rights.

 

[justalayman]

Since the other posters devolved into quibbling about a meritless point: Yes, you were as wrong as wearing white after Labor Day. Not partially, not slightly - wrong. If failure to comply is all you have been charged with, you are getting off lucky. Rolling up the window on the officer could have gotten you an assault on a police officer charge in some places. In other it could have gotten you shot dead.

Talk to your attorney and only your attorney. If you don't have one, get one.

DC

so DC, does a person have to comply with an order of an officer if the detention was not legal? I know different states have decided it differently. Since this is NY, I suspect it was decided in favor of the police but offhand I don't know. I know in my state a person is not required to comply with what would otherwise be a lawful command by an officer if the basis for the detention was not lawful. So, if the stop was not legal in my state, then I would not be under any requirement to provide the information demanded.



Of course, like usual, having court roadside is usually not the best idea so one generally has to deal with it after the fact.

 

[Stressed About]

so DC, does a person have to comply with an order of an officer if the detention was not legal? I know different states have decided it differently. Since this is NY, I suspect it was decided in favor of the police but offhand I don't know. I know in my state a person is not required to comply with what would otherwise be a lawful command by an officer if the basis for the detention was not lawful. So, if the stop was not legal in my state, then I would not be under any requirement to provide the information demanded.

Of course, like usual, having court roadside is usually not the best idea so one generally has to deal with it after the fact.

I tend to think you always have to comply with the orders of the police whether it's during a detention, investigation, traffic flow, etc etc.

 

[justalayman]

I tend to think you always have to comply with the orders of the police whether it's during a detention, investigation, traffic flow, etc etc.

not in all states in all situations.


here is an example:

if a cop comes to your door. He has no basis to enter the property without permission. He orders you to exit the premises.

do you have to comply?

 

[Stressed About]

not in all states in all situations.


here is an example:

if a cop comes to your door. He has no basis to enter the property without permission. He orders you to exit the premises.

do you have to comply?

I'm guessing only with a warrant.
I probably should have said, out in the general public ?

 

[HighwayMan]

...but yes, every violation of criminal law is in fact a crime...

Okay, this is my last comment on this because I see this is going nowhere and you're not getting it.

In New York State "crime" is specifically defined as either a felony or a misdemeanor. Period. If an offense is not a felony or a misdemeanor then it is NOT a crime. Traffic infractions and violations are classified as "petty offenses" which are not crimes.

If you browse through the CPL you will see the word "offense" used over and over again. That is deliberate since not every violation of the laws of New York State is a crime.

If you breach your contract with the cable company I don't know WHAT that is, but unless it is a felony or a misdemeanor then at least I know that it is not a crime.

Crime is defined in the Penal Law - section 10.10 (6) for your reference.

 

[justalayman]

Okay, this is my last comment on this because I see this is going nowhere and you're not getting it.

In New York State "crime" is specifically defined as either a felony or a misdemeanor. Period. If an offense is not a felony or a misdemeanor then it is NOT a crime. Traffic infractions and violations are classified as "petty offenses" which are not crimes.

If you browse through the CPL you will see the word "offense" used over and over again. That is deliberate since not every violation of the laws of New York State is a crime.

If you breach your contract with the cable company I don't know WHAT that is, but unless it is a felony or a misdemeanor then at least I know that it is not a crime.

Crime is defined in the Penal Law - section 10.10 (6) for your reference.

actually, you're not getting it and it is pretty simple and it is well beyond what you want to cite in NY statutes.


the police cannot detain any person without either their permission or reasonable suspicion or probable cause they have committed a crime. It really is that simple.

For the purposes of that statement, a violation or infraction of a traffic law is a crime. I am not and said so long ago that I am not arguing either is a criminal offense but they are for the purposes of the right to detain a person a crime.

 

[justalayman]

I'm guessing only with a warrant.
I probably should have said, out in the general public ?

Ok, so you are already changing it from:

yes, they must comply with any order of an officer to a not all of them.

thanks. That was my point but it goes beyond the inside outside thing.

example:

I am watching the police arrest somebody. I am 100 feet away. I have given no reason for the police to believe I am a threat to them or their actions. One cop sees me and says: hey, get out of here.

can they legally enforce that order?

 

[TigerD]

so DC, does a person have to comply with an order of an officer if the detention was not legal?

When that order is for production of the documents you are required to provide an officer during a traffic stop -- yes. Even if your point was sound - touching the officer in anyway or placing him in fear of being trapped in the window of car speeding away from a traffic stop is not a smart thing to do on the street.

As an old high school buddy (who is a cop) says, the police will win on the street because they have to. We pay them to escalate force when necessary. I wouldn't have much issue with a police officer who shot a motorist after the motorist trapped the officer's arm in the window. That is a life or death situation for the officer.

The OP was playing with fire -- quite literally.

A wise person picks the time and place for a fight. And Sun Tzu would have a bit to say about the strategic positioning of the OP as well, I would think.

DC

 

[TigerD]

I am watching the police arrest somebody. I am 100 feet away. I have given no reason for the police to believe I am a threat to them or their actions. One cop sees me and says: hey, get out of here.

can they legally enforce that order?

Two question there:
Can they legally enforce the order? Yes. They can arrest you and use the force required to affect the arrest.
Will the order stand in court? Maybe, maybe not.

Slugging the officer attempting to make the arrest would still be a crime (definitely in Missouri and I would reasonably think in most places).

DC

 

[justalayman]

Two question there:
Can they legally enforce the order? Yes. They can arrest you and use the force required to affect the arrest.
Will the order stand in court? Maybe, maybe not.

Slugging the officer attempting to make the arrest would still be a crime (definitely in Missouri and I would reasonably think in most places).

DC

they cannot legally enforce the order. They can enforce it but in doing so, without a legal basis to do so, they have committed the crime of violating a person's rights.

but slugging a cop is a totally different matter. That does not constitute refusal to comply with the command.