• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Am I Free to Go?

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
"Am I free to go?"

The magic question we have all been taught to use to ascertain whether or not we are technically under arrest.

But apparently in Stafford County, they have invented the magic land of NOT being detained, but also NOT free to go - at the same time!

Unfortunately, this story is being sold as a "Driving while black" issue. What it really appears to be is a corrupt LEO issue. Is there a race component? Who knows. I do know that this LEO needs to be $chooled.

‘Driving while black’ suit fights Va. deputy’s demand for ID

“Am I free to go?” Wingate asked. “Not right now,” answered the deputy.

Wingate asked whether he was being detained; the deputy said he was not.

“Then I’m free to go,” Wingate asked. “No,” said the deputy.

His lawyers wrote, “Mr. Wingate was aware of his rights. He was also aware that he was an African-American man being wrongfully required to identify himself to a white deputy who had confirmed to him that he had done nothing wrong and was not suspected of having done anything wrong.”​

Unfortunately, the man who [was / was not] being detained claims he became fearful for his "well-being," and decided to run. That doesn't help his case in the court of public opinion, but that doesn't change the fact that a LEO can't make up new states of being, where you are "not detained," and "not free to go" at the same time.

TFred
 

sidestreet

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
673
Location
, ,
excuse me...,

I must have missed class that day. I have never been taught to ask "am I being detained", there certainly doesn't seem to be anything magical about that to me. As far as I'm concerned, that is bad advice for anyone that wants the conversation recorded, except the police officer.


IIRC, it was our friend ixtow who sagely offered his method of determining whether or not he was "on the hook". I believe he said his first question would be "WHY am I under arrest?", and if the officer's reply is "You're not.", then immediately he would ask "WHY am I being detained", and if the officer's reply is "you're not.", then he would say that "since you said that I'm not under arrest, and you said that I'm not being detained, I must be free to go." Most of us know the "you have to articulate that you believe that I am about to commit a crime, or I am committing a crime, or that I have committed a crime, yada, yada, yada", but that way at least you might have the officer stating that you weren't under arrest or being detained on record. Of course if the officer ask for your driver's permit, or tells you he is conducting an investigation, you'd better know EXACTLY where you stand legally, there are lots of thing police officers do that aren't appropriate constitutionally, or legally, or other wise, but should it go to court, understand that many, many more times than not, the officers are going to get the benefit of the doubt, they have QI, and lots of other stuff going for them that you don't, and you will have the burden of proof. If you're prepared to spend lots of money and time over not identifying yourself , not saying that it's impossible to prevail, but I don't know anyone personally that ever did, but be my guest, please let me know how that works out for you.

Do you think that an officer couldn't pull up the plates, drivers permit info of the person the vehicle is registered to, get SOME kind of information, that could give a reason to keep asking questions? Them getting your permit is just another way of keeping you there until they're through with you, you're not going to drive away without your permit, right? I can see that happening, is it right? Ultimately, if you choose to go that far, to find out whether its going to be allowed or not, that will be the judge or jury's decision, but mostly the judge's. Good luck with that, and again, please let me know how that works out for you.

Ever heard the old saying "If you want justice, go to a whorehouse, if you want to get screwed, go to court!"? Lot of truth in that.

Oh by the way, one former officer stated to a number of witnesses (me being one of them), that the "Resisting Arrest thing" is "just obligatory anymore".

sidestreet


we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.


Jeremiah 29:11-13


Philippians 1:3
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
I must have missed class that day. I have never been taught to ask "am I being detained", there certainly doesn't seem to be anything magical about that to me. As far as I'm concerned, that is bad advice for anyone that wants the conversation recorded, except the police officer.

[...]
Well, not saying you are wrong, but considering that as far as we know this was just an average Joe, with no particular connection to those of us who do regularly discuss such things, I thought it was pretty amazing that he knew to raise those kinds of questions.

I wasn't trying to critique his legal language, just pointing out that in this case, the LEO was clearly wrong in giving contradictory answers. I'm not sure the encounter would have gone differently, even if he had used your preferred language. If the LEO is going to make stuff up, then it doesn't really matter what he asked.

TFred
 

All American Nightmare

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
521
Location
Never Never Land
Seems to me that people are uneducated on what questions to ask. The correct question is am I under arrest? Being detained is the same as under arrest. If the answer is yes then either stand tall or bow down it's that simple. If the answer is no then walk. If your property has been taken then consider yourself under arrest.
 

All American Nightmare

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
521
Location
Never Never Land
Well, not saying you are wrong, but considering that as far as we know this was just an average Joe, with no particular connection to those of us who do regularly discuss such things, I thought it was pretty amazing that he knew to raise those kinds of questions.

I wasn't trying to critique his legal language, just pointing out that in this case, the LEO was clearly wrong in giving contradictory answers. I'm not sure the encounter would have gone differently, even if he had used your preferred language. If the LEO is going to make stuff up, then it doesn't really matter what he asked.

TFred
We will never win a argument on the streets with Leo's however there are many things that we can do to ruin their day if they want to play games with our rights.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
We will never win a argument on the streets with Leo's however there are many things that we can do to ruin their day if they want to play games with our rights.
I have won arguments/discussions on the streets, stores, and restaurants with LEOs but it not as rewarding as other means and the results are not as lasting.

Best answer IMO is "No thank you" and keep walking - ball is in his court.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
Oh God, here we go again. Entering race into the picture. African-American. I am going to bet $100 that this person was NOT an African-American. A white LEO. Okay, so would this have been reported had the LEO been black?

Am I the only one that gets so darned tired of hearing and reading this crap?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Oh God, here we go again. Entering race into the picture. African-American. I am going to bet $100 that this person was NOT an African-American. A white LEO. Okay, so would this have been reported had the LEO been black?

Am I the only one that gets so darned tired of hearing and reading this crap?
Apparently not too tired.:):)
 

Marco

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
3,905
Location
Greene County
I have won arguments/discussions on the streets, stores, and restaurants with LEOs but it not as rewarding as other means and the results are not as lasting.

Best answer IMO is "No thank you" and keep walking - ball is in his court.

1+
Maybe, I'm the odd duck as they are usually nice to me when I'm out OC'ing (even when outside of my home range).
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
There is a distinction between full custodial arrest and mere detention. What's critical here is that the cop detained the citizen without "reasonable suspicion" (full custodial arrest requires "probable cause"). That means the cop has to be able to come up with a good faith reason to think that a crime had been committed and that the person detained had something to do with it, either as a conspirator, accessory, principal, or witness. Without that, it's a mere "consensual engagement", from which the citizen is free to leave.

I wonder whether the cop at any time during the incident held, touched, gestured toward, or made any comment with respect to, his firearm. I.e., did he make a "ostentatious or shameful display" of the firearm? The citizen plainly "felt fear". If so, then the cop is guilty of the crime of brandishing a firearm, for which the citizen has a civil action for assault. (Let me point out, as many here already know, I do not agree with the Va. Sup. Ct's. "interpretation" of the brandishing statute. But as they have done the way they have, the cop is guilty of the crime if he touches or displays the firearm in a manner that makes the observer "feel fear".)
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
There is a distinction between full custodial arrest and mere detention. What's critical here is that the cop detained the citizen without "reasonable suspicion" (full custodial arrest requires "probable cause"). That means the cop has to be able to come up with a good faith reason to think that a crime had been committed and that the person detained had something to do with it, either as a conspirator, accessory, principal, or witness. Without that, it's a mere "consensual engagement", from which the citizen is free to leave.

I wonder whether the cop at any time during the incident held, touched, gestured toward, or made any comment with respect to, his firearm. I.e., did he make a "ostentatious or shameful display" of the firearm? The citizen plainly "felt fear". If so, then the cop is guilty of the crime of brandishing a firearm, for which the citizen has a civil action for assault. (Let me point out, as many here already know, I do not agree with the Va. Sup. Ct's. "interpretation" of the brandishing statute. But as they have done the way they have, the cop is guilty of the crime if he touches or displays the firearm in a manner that makes the observer "feel fear".)
Brandishing... now that would make for a very entertaining addition to the present litigation!

TFred
 
Top