Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Below are excerpts from VCDL's 5/15/11 weekly e-mail about an encounter with a VCDL member and a Chesterfield officer.
...He walked up to me and said there had been some vandalism and thefts in the area and he asked if I had seen anybody during my walk.
I said, "not a soul."
He said that it was kind of late for someone to be walking. I said, "not for me."
He asked where I lived and I gave him the name of the neighborhood.
He asked if I had any identification.
I said, "I'm simply out for a walk and I have no legal obligation to provide any ID."
He said that he wanted to show he was at least doing due diligence by getting the names of anybody in the area of the vandalism.
His demeanor was professional and he was not trying to be intimidating in any way, so I said, "As a courtesy, I will let you see my ID."
He thanked me and took my ID, jotted down my name and handed back my ID about 5 second later.
I told him I hoped he caught the vandals and that I would keep an eye out during my walks. I then went on my way.
Some thoughts on this encounter:
On the plus side: The officer was professional, non-intimidating, and didn't say a word about my openly carried gun. He did not disarm me nor did he run my ID for warrants. The whole interaction took no more than 2 minutes.
On the neutral side, he asked for my ID. He's free to do that, but couldn't demand it, which he didn't. I voluntarily provided the ID. In retrospect if I have another such interaction, I'm going to give the officer one of my VCDL business cards instead.
On the negative side, he should have briefly flashed his blue lights on that unmarked car before driving towards me so that I would reasonably know that he was a police officer. That way I would have not been so apprehensive when he drove up next to me and started getting out of his vehicle...(emphasis added by Citizen)
You can read the entire write-up here at the link. It is item number three on the list.
http://www2.vcdl.org/cgi-bin/wspd_cgi.sh/vcdl/vadetail.html?RECID=5159521&FILTER=
------
That is what we get from Terry v Ohio, allowing cops to just up and investigate people. An everyday guy out for a walk is given a case of minor alarm by a cop.
Of course, the cop didn't flash his lights! He didn't want to telegraph he was a cop until he was out of the car. Flash the lights too soon and your suspect might run.
And, who says the cop was really looking for vandals. Such explanation would make a convenient justification. I'm not saying it was not the justification. I'm saying I see no reason to accept the cop's explanation at face value.
The true test of the officer's professionalism would have been if the writer stood fast on his ID document refusal. Or, if the writer had politely, verbally refused consent to the encounter itself from the very beginning.
Thoughts?
...He walked up to me and said there had been some vandalism and thefts in the area and he asked if I had seen anybody during my walk.
I said, "not a soul."
He said that it was kind of late for someone to be walking. I said, "not for me."
He asked where I lived and I gave him the name of the neighborhood.
He asked if I had any identification.
I said, "I'm simply out for a walk and I have no legal obligation to provide any ID."
He said that he wanted to show he was at least doing due diligence by getting the names of anybody in the area of the vandalism.
His demeanor was professional and he was not trying to be intimidating in any way, so I said, "As a courtesy, I will let you see my ID."
He thanked me and took my ID, jotted down my name and handed back my ID about 5 second later.
I told him I hoped he caught the vandals and that I would keep an eye out during my walks. I then went on my way.
Some thoughts on this encounter:
On the plus side: The officer was professional, non-intimidating, and didn't say a word about my openly carried gun. He did not disarm me nor did he run my ID for warrants. The whole interaction took no more than 2 minutes.
On the neutral side, he asked for my ID. He's free to do that, but couldn't demand it, which he didn't. I voluntarily provided the ID. In retrospect if I have another such interaction, I'm going to give the officer one of my VCDL business cards instead.
On the negative side, he should have briefly flashed his blue lights on that unmarked car before driving towards me so that I would reasonably know that he was a police officer. That way I would have not been so apprehensive when he drove up next to me and started getting out of his vehicle...(emphasis added by Citizen)
You can read the entire write-up here at the link. It is item number three on the list.
http://www2.vcdl.org/cgi-bin/wspd_cgi.sh/vcdl/vadetail.html?RECID=5159521&FILTER=
------
That is what we get from Terry v Ohio, allowing cops to just up and investigate people. An everyday guy out for a walk is given a case of minor alarm by a cop.
Of course, the cop didn't flash his lights! He didn't want to telegraph he was a cop until he was out of the car. Flash the lights too soon and your suspect might run.
And, who says the cop was really looking for vandals. Such explanation would make a convenient justification. I'm not saying it was not the justification. I'm saying I see no reason to accept the cop's explanation at face value.
The true test of the officer's professionalism would have been if the writer stood fast on his ID document refusal. Or, if the writer had politely, verbally refused consent to the encounter itself from the very beginning.
Thoughts?
Last edited: