What to do during a police encounter...

[CB Jones]

How do you differentiate 'detain' from 'arrest' in this context?

Detainment is a seizure of a person for a short time with the expectation to release upon finishing the task that required the seizure. Arrest is the seizure of someone without the expectation of releasing them.

Courts have allowed detainment if the officer has reasonable suspicion of a crime. Arrests must have probable cause.

 

[punisher73]

Which we can't ever do by the way. We are either making an arrest or defending ourselves.

Curious on your comment. Who is "we"? Do you have a departmental policy that doesn't allow for it contrary to law?

 

[drop bear]

Curious on your comment. Who is "we"? Do you have a departmental policy that doesn't allow for it contrary to law?

"We" as in everyone in the world who isn't a cop.

It gets done a lot because people think they are somehow protecting themselves legally. Sort of a soft arrest.

But it is more likely to be a false imprisonment.

 

[CB Jones]

"We" as in everyone in the world who isn't a cop.

It gets done a lot because people think they are somehow protecting themselves legally. Sort of a soft arrest.

But it is more likely to be a false imprisonment.

You don't have citizen's arrest power?

 

[drop bear]

You don't have citizen's arrest power?

I do. I don't have detain power

 

[punisher73]

"We" as in everyone in the world who isn't a cop.

It gets done a lot because people think they are somehow protecting themselves legally. Sort of a soft arrest.

But it is more likely to be a false imprisonment.

Gotcha, thanks for clarifying.

 

[Zinobile]

Great to see that video again! And as one who raised plenty of hell in his younger years, I can vouch for the essentials of your post: give the police the same respect you would give any stranger and all will go well. I was never charged with anything (but could have been for some minor stuff), and I believe that's because I just chilled out and cooperated respectfully when the police caught me misbehaving. When the police arrive, it's game-over time!! And like Chris said ... shut the love up and be polite!!

 

[Steve]

Can the LEO on this site please explain civil forfeiture, and how people can protect themselves from having cash or other belongings taken by cops. Was reading this article the other day : The strange, failed fight to rein in civil forfeiture in Washington

And it reminded me of articles I've read over the years, advising people never to tell cops you have cash or any items of particular value in the car, as they will just take it. No citation needed. All they have to do is suggest that it could be connected to criminal activity and they can seize your personal property, even if they don't cite or arrest you for anything.

So, first, is this accurate? Second, if a cop asks you point blank if you have any cash or valuables in the car, what should you do? And lastly, why would a cop ask that question, if not with an interest in generating some revenue for his department literally at your expense?

 

[punisher73]

Each state varies and even then each department will vary based on policy and procedure.

In Michigan, it is one of the states that require a conviction before you are allowed to seize assets. So I can't just decide to take something and claim it was obtained in a crime and then never charge or prosecute the person.

But, even before then our policy was that we could only seize something if there was a clear and direct connection to what was seized and the specific crime that they were arrested for.

For example, I could not have just seized property and claimed that I thought it was obtained illegally. I would have had to charge the person with a specific crime and arrest them for that crime and the property that was seized would have been obtained through the crime.

Let me give 2 examples of what I mean:

I stop a person and end up arresting them for an outstanding warrant for domestic violence. I get them to the jail and while doing an inventory of their property, I find that they are carrying $5000 in cash on them. No matter my opinion on where I think they may have gotten the money, I can't just seize it because I don't think they should have it and think they committed a crime to get it.

I see what looks like a drug deal going on and I stop and detain the person. Through investigation, I find that the person has a dozen small baggies of crack cocaine and $5,000 in cash all in $20 dollar bills on their person. The person says that they are on SSI and doesn't have a job. I could then seize that money due to connecting the money directly to the crime.

To use another example, we do surveillance on a person for awhile and have informants go in and buy drugs and we build a case on it. We show that the suspect is dealing large amounts of drugs out of their house. The person has no job and no other means of income. We get a search warrant and execute it and find large quantities of drugs and guns in the house. The suspect drives a brand new $50k car. We could seize that vehicle because we have shown that there was no other way the suspect could have got that car except through their drug trafficking business.

I have NEVER heard of police being trained to ask if you have any cash or valuables in the car without a specific legitimate reason as part of the investigation. I would agree that it stinks and that they are just looking for seizure opportunities without probable cause of an actual crime. As most attorneys will tell you if a police officer asks if they can search your car. "No" because you have no reason to search it. If they were to ask if I had cash/valuables in the car, I would ask how that pertained to the reason for their stop (assuming traffic stop).

 

[dvcochran]

Each state varies and even then each department will vary based on policy and procedure.

In Michigan, it is one of the states that require a conviction before you are allowed to seize assets. So I can't just decide to take something and claim it was obtained in a crime and then never charge or prosecute the person.

But, even before then our policy was that we could only seize something if there was a clear and direct connection to what was seized and the specific crime that they were arrested for.

For example, I could not have just seized property and claimed that I thought it was obtained illegally. I would have had to charge the person with a specific crime and arrest them for that crime and the property that was seized would have been obtained through the crime.

Let me give 2 examples of what I mean:

I stop a person and end up arresting them for an outstanding warrant for domestic violence. I get them to the jail and while doing an inventory of their property, I find that they are carrying $5000 in cash on them. No matter my opinion on where I think they may have gotten the money, I can't just seize it because I don't think they should have it and think they committed a crime to get it.

I see what looks like a drug deal going on and I stop and detain the person. Through investigation, I find that the person has a dozen small baggies of crack cocaine and $5,000 in cash all in $20 dollar bills on their person. The person says that they are on SSI and doesn't have a job. I could then seize that money due to connecting the money directly to the crime.

To use another example, we do surveillance on a person for awhile and have informants go in and buy drugs and we build a case on it. We show that the suspect is dealing large amounts of drugs out of their house. The person has no job and no other means of income. We get a search warrant and execute it and find large quantities of drugs and guns in the house. The suspect drives a brand new $50k car. We could seize that vehicle because we have shown that there was no other way the suspect could have got that car except through their drug trafficking business.

I have NEVER heard of police being trained to ask if you have any cash or valuables in the car without a specific legitimate reason as part of the investigation. I would agree that it stinks and that they are just looking for seizure opportunities without probable cause of an actual crime. As most attorneys will tell you if a police officer asks if they can search your car. "No" because you have no reason to search it. If they were to ask if I had cash/valuables in the car, I would ask how that pertained to the reason for their stop (assuming traffic stop).

Same for TN. You cannot not seize material without an arrest, and that is no guarantee that it will not be returned. You can confiscate for inspection, evidence, etc... but there is a different definition here.
NEVER have I heard of a police officer asking for cash or valuables. Is it legal? Yes; just as legal as asking if you have sunshine up your axx or asking if you have drugs in your possession. I was always amazed how many people freely answered this question in the affirmative. Up until that point an officer may not have the probable cause for a search. After an affirmative, or usually even a questionable answer, all bets are off.

 

[CB Jones]

Can the LEO on this site please explain civil forfeiture, and how people can protect themselves from having cash or other belongings taken by cops. Was reading this article the other day : The strange, failed fight to rein in civil forfeiture in Washington

And it reminded me of articles I've read over the years, advising people never to tell cops you have cash or any items of particular value in the car, as they will just take it. No citation needed. All they have to do is suggest that it could be connected to criminal activity and they can seize your personal property, even if they don't cite or arrest you for anything.

So, first, is this accurate? Second, if a cop asks you point blank if you have any cash or valuables in the car, what should you do? And lastly, why would a cop ask that question, if not with an interest in generating some revenue for his department literally at your expense?

Well most articles are written heavily slanted against asset forfeiture and do not give a completely accurate picture.

First, the officer has to get a warrant signed by a judge to seize it in which you have to show probable cause that the money is connected to criminal activity or is unclaimed....the burden of proof is still on the police if it is claimed.

Once a warrant is issued the owner of the money can contest the seizure in court.

And most of the stories you hear are so screwed up there isn't any doubt it's dirty money, but what is reported is the cleaned up story afterwards.

But to answer your other questions:

Second, if a cop asks you point blank if you have any cash or valuables in the car, what should you do?

Be truthful.

And lastly, why would a cop ask that question, if not with an interest in generating some revenue for his department literally at your expense?

Because millions of dollars a year in drug proceeds travel along the highways to source cities before being sent to the cartel.

 

[CB Jones]

have NEVER heard of police being trained to ask if you have any cash or valuables in the car without a specific legitimate reason as part of the investigation

They are. It's a part of roadside interviews along roadways that are known as drug corridors.

 

[Steve]

Each state varies and even then each department will vary based on policy and procedure.

In Michigan, it is one of the states that require a conviction before you are allowed to seize assets. So I can't just decide to take something and claim it was obtained in a crime and then never charge or prosecute the person.

But, even before then our policy was that we could only seize something if there was a clear and direct connection to what was seized and the specific crime that they were arrested for.

For example, I could not have just seized property and claimed that I thought it was obtained illegally. I would have had to charge the person with a specific crime and arrest them for that crime and the property that was seized would have been obtained through the crime.

Let me give 2 examples of what I mean:

I stop a person and end up arresting them for an outstanding warrant for domestic violence. I get them to the jail and while doing an inventory of their property, I find that they are carrying $5000 in cash on them. No matter my opinion on where I think they may have gotten the money, I can't just seize it because I don't think they should have it and think they committed a crime to get it.

I see what looks like a drug deal going on and I stop and detain the person. Through investigation, I find that the person has a dozen small baggies of crack cocaine and $5,000 in cash all in $20 dollar bills on their person. The person says that they are on SSI and doesn't have a job. I could then seize that money due to connecting the money directly to the crime.

To use another example, we do surveillance on a person for awhile and have informants go in and buy drugs and we build a case on it. We show that the suspect is dealing large amounts of drugs out of their house. The person has no job and no other means of income. We get a search warrant and execute it and find large quantities of drugs and guns in the house. The suspect drives a brand new $50k car. We could seize that vehicle because we have shown that there was no other way the suspect could have got that car except through their drug trafficking business.

I have NEVER heard of police being trained to ask if you have any cash or valuables in the car without a specific legitimate reason as part of the investigation. I would agree that it stinks and that they are just looking for seizure opportunities without probable cause of an actual crime. As most attorneys will tell you if a police officer asks if they can search your car. "No" because you have no reason to search it. If they were to ask if I had cash/valuables in the car, I would ask how that pertained to the reason for their stop (assuming traffic stop).

That seems reasonable. Do you think Michigan is pretty typical?

Well most articles are written heavily slanted against asset forfeiture and do not give a completely accurate picture.

First, the officer has to get a warrant signed by a judge to seize it in which you have to show probable cause that the money is connected to criminal activity or is unclaimed....the burden of proof is still on the police if it is claimed.

Once a warrant is issued the owner of the money can contest the seizure in court.

And most of the stories you hear are so screwed up there isn't any doubt it's dirty money, but what is reported is the cleaned up story afterwards.

But to answer your other questions:




Be truthful.



Because millions of dollars a year in drug proceeds travel along the highways to source cities before being sent to the cartel.

So you’re saying that if you pull someone over for speeding, you routinely ask about cash or valuables?

 

[CB Jones]

That seems reasonable. Do you think Michigan is pretty typical?

So you’re saying that if you pull someone over for speeding, you routinely ask about cash or valuables?

It's a routine question along drug corridors. Just like asking if you are carrying any illegal substances.

 

[punisher73]

They are. It's a part of roadside interviews along roadways that are known as drug corridors.

I have NEVER heard of police being trained to ask if you have any cash or valuables in the car without a specific legitimate reason as part of the investigation.

I've worked drug interdiction before since our agency covers a major highway between Detroit and Chicago. I didn't just ask that every time I stopped somebody though, I would look for clues and other things that made me want to dig further. But, I've also worked with guys that did just ask everybody that question without any articulable reason. I should have been more clear with my statement.

 

[punisher73]

That seems reasonable. Do you think Michigan is pretty typical?

I don't think so. If I remember correctly, there are only around 20 states that require a conviction before you can seize something.

 

[Steve]

It's a routine question along drug corridors. Just like asking if you are carrying any illegal substances.

Okay. Just trying to understand. So, you pull me over for some reason, speeding, a tail light is out, expired tabs, whatever. You ask me if I have any cash in the car. I say yes to cash and no to illegal substances. What the next step in this routine?

And do the departments along the drug corridors consider this a form of revenue for the department? Is the revenue counted on to supplement the budget?

 

[Urban Trekker]

Unlike most, I'm not one-sided on this.

No, I will not go out of my way to find any and every excuse to give a cop the benefit of whatever doubt I can dig up or grasp straws at.

But at the same time, I'm not going to give a police officer a hard time within legal constraints, just because I can. And I hate seeing other people do it, and what I hate even more is seeing officers allow themselves to be dragged into arguments where they end up stuttering their way though rhetorical questions being asked by the apprehendee.

Eff that. I know that if I was a cop, I'd nicely ask someone to do something only once. After that, I'm going to help them do it.

 

[dvcochran]

They are. It's a part of roadside interviews along roadways that are known as drug corridors.

Agree; but there is a reason and a method that precipitates the conversation.
As said earlier, there is usually more to the situation to build probable cause. The question in and of itself is not illegal at any stage, but on its own may not be enough.
I do realize drug trafficking is a little different but the laws to arrest are not.
It does amaze me how freely information is given sometimes.

 

[Steve]

Unlike most, I'm not one-sided on this.
[snip]
Eff that. I know that if I was a cop, I'd nicely ask someone to do something only once. After that, I'm going to help them do it.

Sounds like you might not have the temperament for the role.