Throughout my career, I have met some individuals who told me that either they did what they did, or I couldn’t, as a police officer do what I just did, because “I know my rights!!” So, if they are not actually rights they are referring to, where did they get this belief from?
Us old-timers who grew up without internet and smart phones when these things actually came on scene started calling this era the “Information Age”. If we, gowing up in the dark ages, had to complete an essay for school, to get the intel on a certain topic we either had to look in our own encyclopedia set at home (that is , unless that particular volume wasn’t eaten by the dog or coffee was spilled on it to the point it had to be thrown out) or go to the library and hope your classmates hadn’t already checked out the material or they were hogging it at the library table. But now, we have so much information at our fingertips–as well as so much misinformation. Hmm… it seems like I have heard this word so many times before. And, I believe it was talking about something that was just recently discovered to be not misinformation, but the ones claiming it was misinformation before were actually propagating their own misinformation by calling the truth misinformation. Wow, that’s confusing. Wish I could remember what that was about. Oh well.
I’m afraid with the ability to get information, and propaganda, to the eyes of searchers within fractions of a second, the American people can find just about any type of rhetoric or instructional delivery where research and fact checking becomes, to some, unnecessary. They get their education concerning their lawful rights from FaceBook, YouTube, forums, and Uncle Bob. They are confident, when met with law enforcement, that they have this “secret information that the dumb cop, since he never studies the law, wouldn’t know and would be put to shame” once they proclaim their newfound knowledge. The cops are going to have to back down now. Yet, in so doing, they become the director of their own miserable fate.
The truth is, when I was in the police academy, I went through 32 weeks of instruction concerning the US Constitution, Commonwealth of Virginia law, and the ordinances of the city of Suffolk, VA. It didn’t stop there. Throughout my career, I went through many training schools approved by the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services, roll call trainings, and personal study. At least twice, I brought up elements in the law in court that the judge and defense attorney had to look up since they were unaware and had to conceed I was right. And, by the way, many of the YouTube gurus who bring forth documents to “prove” that what they teach you is your right, would never invoke the right themselves if they were contacted by law enforcement. Why? Because they know it is difficult, if not impossible, to continue the manage their channel on YouTube where they get their revenue, from inside a jail cell.
So, below, I have listed and expanded upon some common beliefs concerning one’s rights that actually are not so. But before I begin, I need to put out the disclaimer that none of this is legal advice (you should always consult a competent attorney for legal matters), it is what I know the laws in Virginia to be and at the time this is written, and that future case law interpretations may alter the actual original intent of the legislatures. Unlike the ones on social media, I wholeheartedly encourage you to do your own research of the laws where you live, not to neglect the county or city ordinances . They can actually give you a criminal record for violating them as well. And lastly, if you disagree, please leave a comment. I will make sure that it gets put on the thread as long as it is done in respectful taste. Even if you agree, but your comment is not up to the standards of decency, I will delete them, so be forwarned. Without any further, here they are:
A police officer needs probable cause to stop my vehicle.
This is one of the most commonly misunderstood statements that I have run across in my career. It may do well to see what probable cause is and what law enforcement will be authorized to do once this is secured. Blacks Law Dictionary defines probable cause as:
“,,,sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed or that certain property is connected with a crime.”
So, from this definition, we are to conclude that probable cause is needed for three actions a police officer would conduct:
- An arrest of an individual
- A search of a person, possession or location
- A seizure of possessions or property thought to be involved in a criminal activity
When a police officer conducts a traffic stop, he rarely has facts that would immediately result in the arrest or search and/or seizure of a person’s belongings. His standard for pulling you over is NOT probable cause, but what is referred to as reasonable articulable suspicion. As we refer once again to Blacks Law Dictionary, this is defined as:
“Reasonable suspicion is a standard established by the Supreme Court in a 1968 case in which it ruled that police officer should be allowed to stop and briefly detain a person if, based upon the officer’s training and experience, there is reason to believe that the individual is engaging in criminal activity.”
Now before I get the individuals who believe that traffic infractions are not crimes, there is a provision in Commonwealth of Virginia that term traffic infractions as “unlawful” where the victim is society, not as a physical injury victim, but as a loss victim in that while the officer is having to deal with the traffic offender, he is not able to provide services to society as a whole. Such provisions, I trust, are in your state’s law books as well.
So getting back to reasonable articulable suspicion (which I will from now on refer to RAS, as I am lazy and I have much to type), it allows officers to stop and briefly detain a person in order to investigate. As long as the investigation is leading the officer closer and closer to probable cause, the time of the detention is covered under brief. However, once the investigation either stalls or does not produce evidence to support probable cause, the detained individual must be released. He may be asked to come downtown to talk about it, but once it is established that this would be consensual, the individual may then legally decline and be about his or her way.
To be sure, RAS is a much lower standard than probable cause and may be utilized in also the stops and detainment of one on foot. For example, when I arrive at a department store where the loss prevention officer has someone detained in his office for shoplifting, just the knowledge that the 911 dispatcher has sent me to a shoplifting call, the associate I meet there is presumably trained in spotting shoplifters, and that the alledged offender is sitting inside the office, all of these rise to the level of RAS. I usually tell them who I am and until the investigation is completed they are not free to go at this time. It is not until I hear from the loss prevention associate what his observations of the offender were that it then rises to the level of probable cause.
So, the standard again to stop a vehicle is not probable causes as was once believed, but RAS.
Officer, your police vehicle must be in full view of the motorists when you conduct your radar details.
This is one of those statements that may be true where you live (notice I say where you live). In the Commonwealth of Virginia, there is no such prohibition to police officers to force them out in the open to conduct their speed measuring details.
To illustrate, I was in the median of Rt 58 Bypass that cut through the middle of the city. This highway was actually an expressway governed by a speed limit of 60mph. I was backed up into what appeared to be a paved road that went back up a hill into the trees (looked like the ones constructing the highway paved this out of error or for a place for their equipment after the end of the day). I was completely hidden and I would “clock” the motorists from behind as they passed me. I witnessed a vehicle what I believed was traveling around 80mph and I was off by one, 81, when it popped up on my display. As I was walking up to the vehicle after pulling it over, I could not even get out my name and the reason, and the female motorist started in on me. She asked me where I was when I clocked her (keep in mind I never said anything about why I pulled her over, but thank you ma’am). I told her and she lit into me verbally how that I broke the law and I should be thrown into prison because, here it comes, “I know the law, officer. And you violated my rights!!!” She began to explain that her husband was good friends with a guy whose cousin was a California Highway Patrol officer. Her husband’s best friend told her that if she ever got caught for speeding, and the officer was hiding, just tell him he broke the law and now he’s going to jail, and that the officer is supposed to back off. I told her that I was not backing off and that she was traveling at reckless speeds and she will be cited accordingly. She warned me (or you could say attempted to threaten by intimidation) that if I wrote the ticket, I will be going to jail. Uh, so I wrote the ticket, and she was fuming when she left.
Fast forward to the court date, when she was called up and asked her plea, she triumphantly said, “Not Guilty!!” Since I had the notes I pinned on my copy of the summons to refresh my memory, I started to testify and made sure once my location was told, I also revealed that I was “perfectly hidden from all motorists in the median in the trees.” When I made that statement, I noticed that the defendant, while looking at the judge, had her eyes wide, her mouth open and pointing to me, as if to say, “Did you hear that judge?!! It was so animated that the judge put up his hand at her as if to say, “Don’t interrupt!!” Once I ended my testimony, the judge then told her that she can tell me what she wanted, and she just about lit into him verbally how that I broke the law from hiding my vehicle and that I needed to go to jail. The judge had this expression that obviously meant to say, “Really??” She then told her that her husbands best friend’s cousin had told him and he told her that police officers must be in full view. The judge echoed the words I told her on the side of the highway. She was convicted of reckless driving, given a suspended jail sentence and fine.
The takeaway here is that the US Constitution allows for states to make up their own laws as long as it does not conflict with the Constitution or any human rights laws. Some laws can be similar, since I do believe that every state makes it unlawful to run a stop sign or traffic light. But even then, they have their own fine schedule. However, other laws may be completely different or may not be in existence at all.
The police officer must tell me the reason why he stopped me before demanding my license and registration, or I do not have to produce them.
I’m not sure where this belief orginated, yet suffice it to say that millenials through gen z individuals have to a greater degree questioned all types of authority, which is not always a bad thing. As a matter of fact, those throughout history that have accomplished great things and changes had, as their premise, the questioning of the status quo. Yet, where this becomes a problem is when the questioning dictates the actions where the premises there are on false beliefs, or again, misinformation. When one bases their behavior to reflect a concept of truth, where the truth perceived is just a personal preference of how things should be, they find out quickly that the beliefs and actions do not serve them well. They adopt what they think is a life vest, when in actuality it serves more of a set of weights to pull them down.
In this scenario, should the police officer reveal the reason why he or she pulled you over right away? I would concede that by doing so, it eliminates the suspicion of some that believe police officers pull motorists over and then find a reason after they stop them. All things being equal, that is how I conducted my traffic stop at the driver’s window. I started out just be asking if they knew why I stopped them, just to realize that some believe that by not answering they are considered to be uncooperative, which is untrue. Yet, it appeared to me that this is blantantly unfair, and soon after I started my career, I abandoned that practice and, for the most part, I would introduce myself following immediately with, “The reason I pulled you over is…” But we are talking about what we believe should happen, not what is actually regulated by law, or even by departmental policies.
So to summarize, it is not mandated (at least not in Virginia) that the police officer tell you the reason for the stop before he demands your license and registration. However, IT IS the law that you produce your license, registration and proof of insurance when demanded by the police officer who pulled you over. Eventually, he must give you a reason for the stop, especially if he writes you a ticket or arrests you. If he does not have proper authority to pull you, all the evidence that he secures that came out as a reason to the stop is considered, legally, as “fruit from the poisonous tree” and must be barred from entering as evidence in court.
Having said what should happen, let me give you an instance where it may be prudent for the police officer to wait until he informs the driver of the stop. The police officer responds to an area where a liquor store had just been robbed by an armed criminal. The description given of the vehicle and the driver is put out, and the officer spots a vehicle and a driver matching that description. He pulls him over and approaches, waiting for his backup. It may be prudent for the police officer just to demand identification before giving the reason for the stop. You don’t want to say, “Sir, I am Officer Billy Bob, and the reason for the stop is because you match the identification of someone that just knocked off a liquor store.” That would be a good way for the officer’s feet to get run over.
The take away from this is that you may have ideas of what should happen. Please understand, laws are often not fair and may surprise you. Don’t get in trouble by challenging a police officer on what you think is fair. He is not governed by what’s fair. He is governed by the laws. If he has somehow violated your rights, you have a civil remedy later for that. Otherwise, just plat it cool and comply. Your attorney will know what to do.
I can resist an unlawful arrest.
I know someone is right now jumping up and down, pointing and screaming (not really, but he just may be a little frustrated and wrinkling his brow) “This is a true statement!!!” And to that person I would say you are correct. Then why put this as a false belief? It all has to do with the word “unlawful”. One may think, “There’s no possible way that he witnessed or knew what I did.”Or, even, “I know I am innocent. Even though the evidence looks like I did it, I am not guilty!” And this may be true as well. However, would it dismay you that you may be innocent of the charge, but because you resisted arrest, you could still get convicted of that? How can that be?
Remember when we discussed about probable cause, and also how the laws may not be fair? The standard that police officers work on for an arrest of a suspect is probable cause. Probable cause deals with sufficient reason to believe that, based on the culmination of facts , that a crime has been committed and that you are the perpetrator of this crime.
The court’s standard to convict you on said crime is much higher: guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When you are arrested, reasonable doubt needs not be factored in. If everything else points to you, the courts are there to determine whether the doubt is reasonable or not. And even if you are innocent and exonerated, it does not necessarily determine the arrest to be false. The evidence they had at the time (touch DNA, fingerprints, other physical evidentiary items, eye witnesses, etc) was what they were working with, and it did rise to the level of probable cause.
In Virginia, the validity of the probable cause that led to an arrest may go through as many as three tests apart from the officer’s determination. Once he arrests the individual on probable cause, the suspect is taken to a magistrate, and there the magistrate reads the criminal complaint and if there is not enough probable cause, he orders the suspect to be released. If there is, he will grant a warrant. Those that have been arrested on an outstanding warrant faced the same examination of a magistrate from the information on a criminal complaint form. From there, usually if it is a felony, it goes to a preliminary hearing, or in practical terms, a probable cause hearing. There, the judge listens to evidence to see if it rises to the level of probable cause. In cases where there is a lot of evidence against the defendant, the prosecutor will just introduce enough through witness testimony and some of the evidence to get through the probable cause hearing. Again, the judge is not interested in evidence requiring a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. Just probable cause. The third test is that the prosecutor will vacate the charge just to bring the case before a grand jury. They will determine probable cause that would be suffient for the generation of a trial.
You also may not have all the information the police officers have when they go to arrest you. You may not have even known that you personally did anything wrong (keep reading ahead to the self-defense belief to get an idea of what I am talking about). So, as I advised in the last segment, be cool and comply. Let your attorney handle any violation of civil rights if there are indeed are some.
I can always exercise my 1st Amendment of free speech.
Please bear with me as I get something off of my chest and see if you also have issues with this. I am a contributor in Quora, and to disclaim nothing I say on the site or here is representative of the site or it’s administrators. This is a forum where members go on and ask questions and those who know the answer can go on and possibly educate the curious or the ones who looking for an answer. One question I answered was something like, could I use my horn on my vehicle for anything I want, such as embarrasing someone who cut me off? And I answered that in Virginia, your horn is there to warn other motorists and that’s it. It is not to get a hold of your friend on the highway or even to alert someone in their home that their ride is here. You can be charged with an infraction. So, someone replies to me that I didn’t know what I was talking about and the use of the horn in his vehicle is protected by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution as free speech. Really?? The only way I can remotely pin it to free speech is that he is actually a gentleman who bleeps out his expletives when he yells at other drivers. Other than that, I don’t know. Hey, maybe I can exercise my free speech by setting up my drum set (if I had one) on my front yard and beat on it at two in the morning. That type of free speech would not be free, as my neighbors would actually make me pay.
But getting to actual free speech (you know, the one done with your voice or a mode of communication such as a blog or an article), there may be locations where your 1st Amendment is not encouraged or even allowed. You gasp in horror, but even those in the anti-gun movement would tell you, you rights are not absolute but have limits. Here are a few places that voicing your opinions may get you into trouble:
— In Court
When you enter a court room, both your First and Second Amendments are severly limited. Taking care of the second amendment, if you were to attempt to take a handgun into the court building, there are deputies that are armed and will take your attempt seriously, if you get my drift. Then the First Amendment of free speech will also be curtailed in that you will not be able to speak freely to those around you when court proceedings are going on or you will either be asked to leave, or you will be held in contempt of court.
One of the biggest mistakes people make is that they think they can say what they want and when they want in front of the judge. That is also another good way to see the inside of the lockup in the courts, that is, if you’re curious. The video below is a short one and it illustrates this point very well. And respect to the judge who handled it with dignity:
So in looking at the defendant who believed he had the ability to exercise his first and also his sixth amendment rights when and how he wanted to. In case you were curious:
“The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you.”
That simplified explanation of the sixth amendment, simplified by the snipet provided by Google, does not not allow a defendant to interrupt the judge or change the order of proceedings. She asked him how he pled, and he went into argument, which is something you do after the officer has completed testifying. In this video, it appears that the officer was not there which will lead me to believe this was an arraignment hearing in which the judge only wants to know the plea and what the defendant’s intentions are concerning legal representation. The man was arrogant and even told the judge she had no control, because “we” do, which I take it to mean the defendants that come into her court room can take control. Within a few minutes she proved to him she was in control.
— In church or other religious buildings during a service.
18.2-415(B) of the Commonwealth of Virginia Code makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to willfully (or while intoxicated) disrupt a funeral, memorial service, or meeting of a governmental body, school, literary society, or religious service. This is the disorderly conduct code that governs church services.
This year at one of Joel Osteen’s services three women stripped to their underwear and started chanting pro-choice rhetoric and were immediately escorted out of the service. Regardless on where you are on this issue, you must agree that when one exercises their rights at the expense of someone else’s, then it ceases to be a right. The same Amendment that protects free speech also protects the right to the free exercise of religious beliefs. The moment those women did what they did, they encroached on others’ rights to worship. I didn’t see where they were charged with a crime, and that may mean that the church was not interested in pursuing charges.
–At work
If you don’t know this already, you may want to read what I am giving you very carefully, that is, if you wish to remain employed. There are times that voicing your concerns over issues where you work and doing it in a respectful way that works toward a solution, is what actually is needed. However, when one goes to his boss to “tell him off” or scream at him with the intent of venting his anger, well, you can start planning to be checking the want ads the rest of the day. Also, some occupations have non-disclosure agreements where you signed a contract when hired not to reveal secrets. If you do, not only could you be looking for another job, you might want to get the services of an attorney to help fight a lawsuit heading your way.
Okay, I could have talked about the military, slander, and so much more, but I think you get what I am saying. You do have the right to free speech, but in a forum and time that is appropriate, that does not encroach on anyone’s right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
I can use lethal force to protect property.
I am told in a couple of states this may be true. Yet, these are the states that still believe, it seems, to be a death penalty offense to steal a horse or cattle. In Virginia, this is one of the most efficient ways to get a manslaughter charge.
One morning, I was dispatched to a theft from motor vehicle call where the owner of the vehicle left his doors unlocked as he went up into his apartment. It appears that when he went down, he saw his driver door ajar, and his GPS system and wallet with $300 dollars were gone. I was told by dispatch that the complainant was finishing up his breakfast and would be down to meet me in the complex parking lot and that I could start processing the vehicle for DNA and prints in the meantime. I was about half-way through with the processing when I heard his voice as I observed him walking my way. He said something like, “Officer, I am the one who called and I just want you to know I am exercising my right to bear arms. I have a gun in my holster on my right side.” I told him I was good with it as long as the gun stayed in the holster. As I was finishing up the processing, I started asking him questions for information for my report. At one time in between questions, this man blurts out, “It’s a good thing for these thieves that I didn’t wake up when they were inside my vehicle. You would have had to bring body bags with you.” I stopped processing and looked at him. “Tell me you’re joking.” He replied with an expletive before No, “No. I have the right to shoot anyone who tries to steal from me.” I then asked, “Sir, where are you from?” He answered, “Texas.” I nodded my head, “That figures. You may get away with it there, but you’re in Virginia, and you will be charged with malicious wounding if they lived and manslaughter if they didn’t” I attempted to warn him, but I’m not sure he believed me. If you don’t believe me, please check for yourself on line by going directly to the code of the state you are in. Sometimes, even castle or stand your ground laws do not allow lethal force when it is obvious the only crime to be committed is theft.
If someone assaults me and walks away, I get to run after him and hit him back. It’s self defense.
Ah, it seems that the unwritten rules from the schoolyard when we were kids have prevailed into the thinking of the adult minds. I remembered the talk I had with my father who told me do not allow someone to just come up and push or hit you. If they do, or even try to do, hit them as hard as you can to show them you will not be a push over. I’m sure many of you have had the same discussion with your fathers. But we’re not in school anymore, and those same instructions can get you into hot water.
If someone comes up and slaps you and begins to walk away, and you make the decision that this person is not going to get away with this and you slap him or her back, you have just committed a chargeable offense of assault. No, it is not self-defense, as many think it is.
Let me explain. Most states, if not all, define self-defense as just that. It is to protect yourself from a threat or attack. If the threat is leaving or has left, you have no more need to defend yourself. To run after as a victim and exact the same upon the offender has made you an offender as well. Your remedy for someone slapping or hitting you is to call the police, charge the person with assault, subpoena all the witnesses (yes, you can actually charge someone and subpoena the witnesses without an attorney) and show up in court and testify to what occurred.
Also, if someone attacks you, and while defending yourself against the attacker you suddenly get the upper hand and he stops attacking you, you must stop as well. To continue fighting while the offender has given up moves you from victim to offender. In other words, if you knock the offender to the ground, you cannot mount him and pummel his head. The belief that this is self-defense is from the ego, pride, etc of the victim to show him or her they cannot do this to you and get away with it. Furthermore, unless you are able to articulate that the unarmed person was big enough or had martial arts or street fighter training, you cannot shoot someone for just hitting or slapping you. You may disagree, but don’t say you were not warned, my friend.
Since I have the right to remain silent, I do not have to identify myself upon the demand of the police officer.
I believe that the misunderstanding of the Miranda Warnings are because the brief advisement of these warning does not qualify what silence is referring to. If you notice, I refer to them as warnings, as many in the legal arena do, because Miranda is not the origin of rights, but refer to the rights already in the Constitution. Unless you know what the 5th Amendment says, you may misunderstand the scope of what your right of silence entails.
If you read the 5th Amendment, it details that we, as citizens, will not be compelled to be a witness against ourselves. That’s it. Those are the perimeters of your right to silence. Period. Your identity does not fall under that protection. There are laws that demand you hand over your license or identification card, or that you verbally identify yourself upon request of a police officer. By giving up this information, you will in no way be giving intel on your involvement in a crime. A failure to do so will be met with legal consequences.
In the Commonwealth of Virginia, when a motorist or a suspect being investigated does not provide either documents or verbal accurate confirmation of their identity, they are forthwith arrested. They are brought before a magistrate where the magistrate will generate a committal order with the name John or Jane Doe with a serial number attached. The unnamed individual will enjoy the deluxe accommodations that the city jail has to offer until he or she is identified. Where it was just a minor infraction or offense has landed the individual in jail because, “I have the right to remain silent.”
If the police had reason to believe you ditched the gun or narcotics you had on you while you were being chased by them through yards and alley ways, and they ask you where you threw the gun or drugs, and you said, silence may not be your friend here as well. If those drugs or gun are found by a child and tragedy occurs, if they find your prints or DNA on those items, you will be held criminally and civilly liable for what happened. To learn more about Miranda Warnings, read my aricle “Miranda Warnings (Rights)–Exposing the Myths“
So here a few of the commonly misunderstood beliefs of one’s rights that can actually land them in serious legal trouble. The take away from this entire article is to always check for yourself before you act on a right you think you have. I didn’t write this article to primarily educate you. I did it so that if I hit a nerve, it would get you to check it for yourself. It does not matter if you disagree with me. It does matter that you educate yourself.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
YOU MAY NOT HAVE TIME TO LOOK FOR SOME TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD WEAPON IF SOMEONE BREAKS DOWN YOUR DOOR–EQUIP YOURSELF NOW–CLICK BELOW!!
