Not answering a knock

[spd2918]

Not long ago there was a thread about not answering a knock from a police officer while stealth camping. Advice was given to never talk to the police. Below are two examples of why this was bad advice. Keep in mind these examples are actual events, not some internet lawyer fantasy:


07/11/14, I was called to report of a man living in his van and creating a mess in the 700 block of Weeks AVE. I responded and found a guy living in a very beat up van. He had stacked some furniture items on the lawn next to his van and he dumped his cat's litter box (and feces) onto the road behind him. He was not being loud.

I knocked. He answered and exited the van. He said he was down on his luck, had just bought the van, and his ex-wife was coming by in the late afternoon to get the furniture. I let the 2 year old expired registration go on the promise he'd get it registered on Monday. I asked him to clean up the litter and stack the furniture on his roof rack rather than on someone's private property. He did so.

Had he not answered I would have called for a tow truck due to the registration and state of the van (not road worthy). He would either have remained hidden inside the van for the tow or he would have come out- but the van absolutely would have gone on the wrecker. His choice to talk to me led to a reasonable outcome. I am not a softy nor would other officers handle the situation much different.


Example two- this one is more serious.
I responded to a report of theft. I met with the complainant who I was familiar with because she is known to sell her medication (and then falsely report it stolen to get more to sell). She complained a man she invited to her apartment stolen her bottle of pain killers. The man denied this and said the woman was nuts. I talked to her again. She cried and then claimed she woke up to find him having sex with her (rape, a felony).

The accused man talked to me and said no rape ever happened. He said he figured something was up so he started to record their conversation. He turned over his phone to me and told me I could go through it. The conversation revealed she was lying and they had sex consensually.

Had he not talked to me he would have been arrested for sexual assault and had evidence taken to show sex occurred. His choice to talk to me saved him from jail, a preliminary hearing, a trial, and possibly prison.

 

[Drifted_Cowboy]

"Don't... tempt me Frodo! I dare not take it. Not even to keep it safe. Understand, Frodo. I would use this ring from a desire to do good... But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine."

Gandalf

 

[akrvbob]

Thanks for some great examples spd2918!

Great response Drifted_Cowboy! (that could be taken as sarcasm, it is not.)
Bob

 

[HarmonicaBruce]

Thanks for the post. Van dwellers need to consider a number of things, and decide if they're going to answer a knock or not, in advance. Don't want to make the decision under duress.

 

[offroad]

Maybe you are a little deaf or deep sleeper. Is the cop going to tow you at 3am? Thought you get a sticker for 24 hours and if still abandoned you are towed then.

 

[vagari]

It's interesting how we all have different perspectives sometimes. I like conversations such as these as they make me think.

Example one:
I assume the van was in the street and not in his driveway. Dumping/litering on someone else's property is not acceptble. I really dislike literers and I would not have been as nice. Having an expired registration is also not acceptable. I could see maybe a few weeks as we all get busy sometimes, but years? Clearly violations of a few laws.

One thing where I disagree. A police officer is not a mechanic so I'm not sure how they can deem a vehicle not road worthy. Shouldn't an office have to prove that a vehicle is not road worthy first (innocent until proven guilty)?

Example two:
This seems like the guilty until proven innocent. You readily point out that if an "innocent man" had not spoken to the police he would have been falsely arrested and would have had to prove his innocence. People are liars, especially a known drug dealer as you pointed out. Unless there were signs of self defense from the woman (scratches on man, injuries to woman, etc.) I would think there would not be enough evidence to arrest this guy. If I were falsely accused of such a terrible crime I would never speak to the police. I would just hope my phone evidence didn't go missing.


My experience with the law is that they are not out for the truth. They pick a side then try to prove their side at all costs.

Read this story about 5 officers lying on the witness stand.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/..._police-officers-five-officers-chicago-police

Here is the most damning paragraph:
"A University of Chicago law student in the late 1980s and early 1990s studied police perjury in the Cook County system, interviewing dozens of courtroom veterans as well as narcotics officers. Myron Orfield, now a University of Minnesota law professor, found that most police officers, judges and public defenders believed officers at least shaded the facts to support their arrest." - This is a polite way of saying they lied and perjured themselves.

 

[Zil]

Thanks for some balance from LEO experience. If a vehicle is not registered or false tags, or illegally parked, there is no waiting before towing, in most jurisdictions.

 

[spd2918]

It's interesting how we all have different perspectives sometimes. I like conversations such as these as they make me think.

Thanks- That's why I posted. This site seems to have a lot of people that make broad statements instead of considering the totality of the circumstances.

One thing where I disagree. A police officer is not a mechanic so I'm not sure how they can deem a vehicle not road worthy. Shouldn't an office have to prove that a vehicle is not road worthy first (innocent until proven guilty)?

I didn't specify in my post, but there was a broken windshield and one tire was almost flat. If I asked for insurance I am positive the answer would have be "none," but I didn't ask. I do mechanic work, too. I have an obligation to the public not to let junk go down the street.

Example two:
This seems like the guilty until proven innocent. You readily point out that if an "innocent man" had not spoken to the police he would have been falsely arrested and would have had to prove his innocence.

Right, he would certainly been arrested had he not chose to tell his side of the story. With only one side to go on and no other clear evidence, that's how it works.

People are arrested all the time based solely on testimonial evidence, not TV CSI stuff. There would rightfully be a huge backlash if we disregarded rape claims and failed to investigate.

Innocent until proven guilty is the standard once you go to court, not the standard by which you and I live by and not the standard for probable cause. No one would ever be arrested if the police (and victims, and witnesses) all assumed everyone to be innocent.



As far as the "police always lie" myth, consider the number of police officers in this country (hundreds of thousands). That's a bold statement to make about a large and diverse group of people.

No one is purporting all police to be angels- that would be just as absurd as saying they all lie. They are drawn from the public and the public has its fair share of horrible people. Prejudice, even that which is based on personal experience, is not good judge of people.

 

[caseyc]

Regarding the OP's first post, in both examples, my opinion is that the person involved was "asking for it."

In example #1, the owner of the van was asking for trouble and got it. What sane person goes around dumping furniture, etc, on someone's private property? The affected homeowner had every right to complain. I would even go so far as to say the van owner would have left the garbage there had no police officer showed up.

In example #2, the person who had intercourse with the woman knew she was nuts. What sane guy would want to have s@x with someone he believes is screwy in the head and might cause trouble? Although he put himself in that situation, at least he had evidence to back up his claim.

I'd be more concerned about a knock on the door from a police officer for no apparent reason whatsoever.

 

[vagari]

Thanks for this discussion spd2918. It is very interesting and educational for me (and hopefully others).

I don't think all police lie, but I think it's a much larger percentage then most people would think. Maybe some would rather call it slanting, shading facts, etc. but it's still perjury.

In 2000 there was a research paper created by the National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=181241

I did not read the article (it's 176 pages) and I'm only pulling excerpts from the Abstract but I feel it's very concerning.

A study of 508 New York City police officers used the factorial survey method to determine the underlying conditions and circumstances that an officer would take into account in making a decision to commit perjury.

The present research used interviews with more than 100 police officers and a subsequent focus group of 6 police officers to specify 9 dimensions and 50 levels as categories for the factorial survey.

The participants received questionnaires containing 24 unique scenarios (aka vignettes). Each scenario depicted a typical arrest situation. The participants made judgments on each scenario.

Results of ordinary least-squares regression analysis revealed that 77 percent of the officers indicated that [police] perjury would be probable in some of the scenarios.

Police perjury varied with the job assignment and the type of crime. Female police appeared less likely to commit perjury than male officers; seniority had no significant influence. Results also revealed the common motivations and rationales for committing perjury and the factors that deterred perjury.

Findings suggested that police agencies must make the elimination of police perjury and continuous education in ethics among their priorities.

 

[akrvbob]

First everyone, thanks for a reasonable, rational thread about police!! It's a breath of fresh air!

Vagari, I'm not sure it's valid to take research done specifically on the Chicago and New York PDs and apply them across the nation. I think the same research done in Fargo, North Dakota would give very different results. Why would we use the Chicago/NY research as a universal standard instead of smaller, more civilized places? They are the majority, why use the few very bad places as a universal standard?

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the police in major crime ridden cities would have a very different attitude than the national norm. It's hard to see how it could be any other way!!

I'm very pro-police! I know there are lots of bad ones, but I think the vast majority are good decent people doing a really hard job remarkably well.

I believe the vast majority of them leave their families in the morning knowing they may have to die protecting and defending someone that day, and they do it willingly. They may know the odds are against it, but it is a distinct possibility. I can't hate someone willing to do that!

It make sense to me that in places where the odds of being killed are dramatically increased, like Chicago or NY, the police would have a very different attitude than in small, quiet towns. They want to come home to their families just like we all do so if they have to stretch the rules to keep themselves and their families safe, I totally understand that.

I think if you did a few ride-alongs with cops in NY or Chicago, your attitude would change to!!!
Bob

 

[vagari]

Again, I am not saying all police lie. I'm just trying to point out that it is more common then people realize. Most research studies are done in larger areas as there is simply more data.

Here's a research article on the Rampart division of the LAPD (big urban area) and Tulia, Texas (smaller and rural).
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/walq90&div=35&id=&page=

Interestingly it says "innocent individuals charged as a result of police wrongdoing in Rampart and Tulia rarely contested their guilt at trial. As is the case in the justice system generally, the great majority pleaded guilty." Think about this statement. It's safer for an innocent person to plead to a reduced sentence then risk getting a longer sentence due to police perjury. It's also cheaper.

Here's a 24 month study from the Kansas area
http://works.bepress.com/melanie_wilson/3/

"research revealed that a sampling of judges, public defenders, and prosecutors estimated that police commit perjury between 20% and 50% of the time they testify on Fourth Amendment issues"

 

[spd2918]

There is department culture just like there is ethnic culture and family culture. Bad culture is the result of bad leadership. I have not been exposed to corruption in my dept or any depts that I have worked with. I have met stupid and lazy cops, but no perjurers that I know of. We had two rookies that were found to lie about small things (not related to prosecution)- they were both fired.

 

[Zil]

False prosecution is a bigger problem than the street patrolman cause.

 

[Van-Tramp]

In example #1, if the van had up to date tags and the person had not broken other laws (littering, etc) then what could you have done if he refused to answer your knock? Nothing. You would have simply had to drive away because you can not tow a legally parked vehicle.

BTW - I'm sure the home owners of that neighborhood appreciate that you allowed that person to continue to litter their street.

Example #2 has nothing to do with not answering a knock at the door. Still, you are saying that you would have arrested the gentlemen based solely on the word of a woman that you admit to knowing as a drug dealer and as a liar to the police, all because he would have chosen to exercise his 5th amendment rights? That does not help your argument that you are the "good guy" here.

Allow me to give an example that happened to me a few years back...

My ex (GF at the time) decided to escalate a verbal argument one night by calling the police. They showed up and I said and did nothing when they arrived. They attempted to question me, and I kept my mouth shut. They questioned her and she gave her side of the story on what happened that night.

Guess who was arrested? You would think the man (me) right? Nope... she was arrested, hauled off to jail, had a protection order filed against her by the court, and is now a convicted domestic violence abuser along with tens of thousands in fines, lawyer costs, court fees, and 18 months of anger management courses. She almost lost her job and was nearly deported (she is from the Philippines). Talking to the officers that night got her arrested. If she had STFU (like I always advised her) the cops could not have arrested her. The fact that she spoke to the police is what got her arrested, not that she did any sort of damage to me in any way.

I was not bothered by the officers even though I refused to answer their questions. They were GOOD cops that know I have rights and that they must honor those rights... the rights that they in fact swore to protect.

PS - Bob, thanks for the moderation earlier. I needed it

 

[Zil]

Exactly what was she arrested for if you didn't talk and there was no blood?

 

[Van-Tramp]

Oh heck, I don;t really recall. I think it was DV-harassment (not even a felony charge)

Blood is not required. In fact, all she admitted to in her statement to the police was a little "pushing and shoving" to get me out of the bed. And there in is the problem, she *admitted* to something when talking to the police. I refused to talk to them, and hence never accidentally admitted to doing anything against the law.

As spd mentions in other posts, he pretty much has to believe any accusation of rape as fact and he must then make an arrest... facts and proof be damned, he must make an arrest if only to "prevent a public backlash". Facts do not mean anything to him, he is not the judge or an investigator... he just arrests at will. The same applies to DV accusations. Here in Colorado, when the police are called to a DV call, they are REQUIRED to arrest one of the two parties... REQUIRED. This is likely true in many states.

In the OP's #2 example, the guy basically admits to having sex with that woman. And the woman the tells the police that it was not consensual. And by definition, that is rape. By talking to the police, he basically admitted to raping her. The fact that he had a text message does not actually prove that she did not decide to turn him down after. Some police would take his admission of sex as an admission of the rape and go ahead and make the arrest. He put himself at greater risk of, not only an arrest, but a conviction by talking to the police. If he had STFU, sure he may have been brought into the station, but the conviction chances would have dropped significantly.

PS - no word that the woman in example #2, who lied to the police (a crime) and filed a false report (a crime), was arrested either. So far I see the tally in the OPs two examples as two proven and admitted law breakers (litterer and liar) were let go, and an innocent person was nearly arrested. It really doesnt help make the police look like great folks to talk too if you ask me. The simple fact is that talking to the police greatly INCREASES your chance of being cited or arrested. STFU and you are more likely to sleep in your own bed tonight. ANY lawyer (even the bad ones) will agree with that final statement.

 

[GotSmart]

This old fart has insurance and registration paid up. Van legal with inspection sticker. A wallet filled with plastic to give the appearance I am a productive member of society on a Walkabout.

I am more likely to flag down a cop to find a legal and safe place to rest than go stealth.

LEO loves a chance to be the good guy.

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, but BS works better.

 

[spd2918]

In example #1, if the van had up to date tags and the person had not broken other laws (littering, etc) then what could you have done if he refused to answer your knock? Nothing. You would have simply had to drive away because you can not tow a legally parked vehicle.

Right, but that's not what happened. If he had listened to you (never talk to cops / answer a knock) he'd have a tow bill and frustration.

And he cleaned up his mess.


As for #2, it again has to do with a suspect talking to the police. I had only one side of the story up to that point, and yes drug dealing liars can get raped and are due justice for it.

Face it, your advice on not talking to the police is just bad. Real world examples from an actual police officer is worth more than someone who admits he has never been harassed.

Your personal example implies that cops don't know peoples' rights and that's BS. We fight for people's rights every day. The right not to ripped off, abused, raped, intimidated, scammed, etc... We try to find and arrest the people that do these things. Maybe those criminals should not talk to us because it's their right. Is that what you want?

 

[Van-Tramp]

First, don't get me wrong Spd. I am not saying that I do not appreciate what you guys do every day. I know it is a thankless job and you all put your lives at risk for the general public. With that said, you are all human and make the same mistakes that every other human makes. Some of you ignore our rights, others will outright abuse your powers and violate our rights, and even some will outright kill "in the name of your job" when it is not warranted (see recent headlines about NY cop killing a person in his custody?)

The reason I have never been harassed by the police... because I do not talk to the police. Some of you guys have *attempted* to harass me in the past and I just laughed at them. You can't harass me because I know my rights. Although I have not been harassed personally by the LEO, I have seen the first-hand harassment to others, including my own family.

I never said that you guys do not KNOW my rights... I am confident that you do. However, it is very often that I read about situations in which you guys abuse your power to not allow us to exercise our rights. Take this entire thread for example it is a police officer trying to use FEAR to get everyone to give up their 5th amendment rights when approached by ALL police officers. FEAR is what you use. "You better talk to me, or else..." is not respecting, protecting, preserving our rights.

You are obviously biased on this matter, being a police officer yourself, so no I do not think your "real world experiences" trumps that of my protected rights that you are asking me to give up. Instead I would take the word of a defense attorney. What do you think he will say? You got it... STFU.

Now...

Example #1 guy would not have been towed for not talking to you, he would have been towed for having expired tags. This is NOT the same thing Spd. You are misinforming everyone when you say that if he had not talked to you he would have been towed. He was breaking the law(s), and then confessed to breaking them when questioned. Honestly, he SHOULD HAVE been towed (and cited for littering) no matter if he talked to you or not.

In example #2 I find it ironic that in your city, if one person accuses another of a crime (rape) you go ahead and make the arrest without ANY other information. No, I do not believe that is how things work as that would be a HUGE violation of anyone's rights. So no I do not believe you even *could have* arrested that guy if he refused to talk to you.

And face it, even if you did arrest him, your "arrest" is nothing more than bringing him down to the station at which time ANY lawyer would have him back on the streets within the time to take a coffee break. You had NO EVIDENCE of a crime, so the charges would have been dropped by the DA before he finished reading your police report. Simply put, this man would have gone free (even if he DID raper her) by not talking to you, because you (the law) have to prove his guilt not the other way around. By talking to you, he admitted to having sex with her and put himself at risk of you interpreting that as a confession. He could have been convicted solely on how you *interpreted* his words and nothing more. And that is why you should not talk to the police... your *interpretation* can (and will) be used against me in a court of law, no matter if it is fact or not.

Now, you and I have gone round-n-round on this for some time now. You believe I am wrong, and I believe you are (the Bill of Rights is on my side). Forum posts will never change the mind of the other. So, I will leave this forum post alone... I have offered the "other side" to anyone that is willing to listen.