Why do police ask, "Have you ever been arrested before"?

[Zigner]

Let me word it a different way then. A person should not be harassed or threatened by law enforcement on a repeated basis based on past activity. The job of law enforcement is to enforce laws, not to harass or threaten people concerning their past.

Since when does a simple question become harassment?

 

[Silverplum]

$10 FA Bucks says, prior DUI/s.

 

[cbg]

People shouldn't be re-arrested or harassed based on something done in the past.

I'm looking for where anyone said that you could be re-arrested or harassed based on your answer to the question.

 

[dave33]

Let me word it a different way then. A person should not be harassed or threatened by law enforcement on a repeated basis based on past activity. The job of law enforcement is to enforce laws, not to harass or threaten people concerning their past.

In most cases I completely agree. At least you know what to expect, if you have a past drug conviction and get pulled over, expect to be searched. Will the officer actually say or write in a report the search was conducted "because of a past conviction"? Absolutely not. There will of course be slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, smell of marijuana or any number of reasons.
That being said, myself, along with most, will not show to much concern for a sex offender or convicted child abuser who complains about harassment.

You only have the rights you can afford to defend.

 

[Just Blue]

I think it's self-righteous to assume that if a cop questions me, then I MUST have broken the law. That's basically assuming that not only is an accused person to be presumed guilty, it should even be presumed I'm guilty even if I am questioned.

Small wonder people have to be cautious when dealing with the police.

You say "self-righteous". I say law abiding.

 

[CdwJava]

If a person exercised their right to not answer that question, what would it tell you about them?

That depends on how they "exercise" their right. Telling me to go fornicate with a domesticated barnyard animal tells me one thing, politely stating that they do not believe they have to answer that question is another.

HOW a person responds to a query or a contact can be an important officer safety tool. The nature of the response can mean the difference between standing on the sidewalk or being seated on the curb with your legs straight out in front of you with your ankles crossed and hands in your lap (or in handcuffs).

 

[CdwJava]

Let me word it a different way then. A person should not be harassed or threatened by law enforcement on a repeated basis based on past activity. The job of law enforcement is to enforce laws, not to harass or threaten people concerning their past.

I fail to see how we leap from concluding that a SIMPLE question: "Have you been arrested before?" rises to the level of harassment or threats!?

 

[Subjection]

In most cases I completely agree. At least you know what to expect, if you have a past drug conviction and get pulled over, expect to be searched.

I can see this being the case if the officer knew that the person they were pulling over actually had a past conviction, either based on records he was able to search, or even personal experience with the individual. But I'm curious about whether or not the individual has a responsibility to disclose that information to the officer upon being asked about things in his/her past.

Will the officer actually say or write in a report the search was conducted "because of a past conviction"? Absolutely not. There will of course be slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, smell of marijuana or any number of reasons.

Yes, this is to be expected if the individual was actually caught in the act of using, or being under the influence of drugs or alcohol. It would be evidence of a current wrongdoing, and something the officer can see for himself right then and there.

You only have the rights you can afford to defend.

And whatever a judge agrees with. But that's getting down to what I'm asking about. If a person is stopped by police and is asked whether they've been arrested in the past, do they have to divulge that information, and can it be used against them in some way that a judge would agree with?

 

[Zigner]

If a person is stopped by police and is asked whether they've been arrested in the past, do they have to divulge that information

This question has been answered. The person would be under no obligation to divulge if s/he's been arrested. The person may, in fact, have an obligation to divulge if s/he is on probation/parole.

...and can it be used against them in some way that a judge would agree with?

This question is moot, as the records would already be available.

 

[Subjection]

You say "self-righteous". I say law abiding.

Assuming someone to be guilty based on the fact they were pulled over doesn't make you "law abiding".

 

[Subjection]

People shouldn't be re-arrested or harassed based on something done in the past.

I'm looking for where anyone said that you could be re-arrested or harassed based on your answer to the question.

I didn't say they could. I was referring to the questioning of someone about their past arrest history and whether or not it could be used against them in an unrelated stop if the person didn't want to answer the question.

 

[Zigner]

Folks, this is why we don't do hypotheticals.

 

[Subjection]

This question is moot, as the records would already be available.

My statement wasn't a question. It was a statement in response to:

You only have the rights you can afford to defend.

 

[Zigner]

My statement wasn't a question. It was a statement in response to:

You asked a question - specifically:

If a person is stopped by police and is asked whether they've been arrested in the past, do they have to divulge that information, and can it be used against them in some way that a judge would agree with?

It was a two-part question and I answered both parts. At this point, you're just here to argue a moot point. That's not what this forum is for.

 

[Subjection]

Folks, this is why we don't do hypotheticals.

Go back to post #1. Read what I wrote. It wasn't based on a hypothetical. I was asking about something I've observed. You aren't required to answer the question or to participate in any way in this thread, FYI.