Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
angelsfan33

Cops called on on me while hiking with daughter!

Recommended Posts

Obviously there is one solution. Go for a walk around that park every other day. Be seen with your whole family, just the wife, just one kid, both kids, etc. Make them feel miserable for calling the cops on someone exercising. Ever better... every time you see them, point them out to your children as the people who watch other people and call the cops on them. Make it obvious you are pointing at them and their dog. Don't approach them... don't talk to them in any way.

 

Just enjoy the park. Bring friends, throw a caching event (with park permission) called "Take back the Parks!" and write your story in the write-up.

 

If they approach, you have 2 choices... talk to them gently and be nice, or call the cops and say you are being harassed (again) for walking around the park and exercising. Describe them and their dog. Be loud enough to be heard and walk away so as to avoid them.

 

Let the cops visit them...

Share this post


Link to post

Ok this is very upsetting for me, I have met angelsfan several times and he is an awesome guy. I don't understand how someone could mistake him and his daughter as anything bad such as this? Although I am not surprised about the nosey couple that called on you. When Makahummel and I went on that same trail to grab the Multi-cache we ran into a similar issue. While grabbing the "speed trap" cache a lady driving by in her car stopped and starred at us for a really long time. The friendly guy that I am gave her a nice wave when she proceeded to call someone on her cell phone and speed off. Hmmmm I wonder what we were doing wrong? As we headed down to that first waypoint we saw some people playing with there dogs but they didn't pay attention to us. About 5 mins later we saw a cop pull up in front of that first cache where the lady spied on us! haha wow! the residence around here are paranoid jerks we thought as we walked down the trail to the next wp. Nothing ever happened after that.

 

This was the same exact park which was why I was not surprised about the cops showing up, but to come to your house and ask those kind of questions is absolutely unnecessary. I will say we live in a safe crime free area, but the police department here [profanity removed] with nothing better to do then to harrahs the innocent. I'm sorry, I have been through a lot with cops and geocaching, but I never let it get me down. This game is embedded deep in my blood and will never die.

 

Sorry to hear about this bro, hopefully this problem blows over and you and your daughter(s) can still go out to enjoy a nice day of caching.

 

This comment makes me think that this may have had nothing to do about "concerned citizens" and the welfare of children. This may be all about neighbors of that park trying to keep people out of "their" park.

 

I had a hide that had to be moved because someone living near a public park didn't like people all of a sudden finding this park that they had used as their private playground.

Share this post


Link to post

Obviously there is one solution. Go for a walk around that park every other day. Be seen with your whole family, just the wife, just one kid, both kids, etc. Make them feel miserable for calling the cops on someone exercising. Ever better... every time you see them, point them out to your children as the people who watch other people and call the cops on them. Make it obvious you are pointing at them and their dog. Don't approach them... don't talk to them in any way.

 

Just enjoy the park. Bring friends, throw a caching event (with park permission) called "Take back the Parks!" and write your story in the write-up.

 

If they approach, you have 2 choices... talk to them gently and be nice, or call the cops and say you are being harassed (again) for walking around the park and exercising. Describe them and their dog. Be loud enough to be heard and walk away so as to avoid them.

 

Let the cops visit them...

 

That's a great idea.

 

Then, if they ever see some old lady actually getting mugged by some thugs they will say "I'm not getting involved"

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

that's a terrible shame. penalize a father for spending time with his daughter? I'd have been pretty angry, personally. I'd have suggested that the cops go back and tell those nosey people that they just ruined a guy's evening and frightened his daughter.

 

I really can't see the good in the situation at all. those people jumped to conclusions based on what? they saw a guy with a little girl. is it that rare for fathers in that community to spend time with their kids? they called the cops because of a "might" situation. I MIGHT understand if they were suspicious of the cache containers in the woods containing drugs or bombs or something.

 

but a father going for a walk with his daughter? if the little girl screamed or he was being rough with her...okay, benefit of the doubt there.

 

those people shouldn't go outside their house! if they thought the OP "MIGHT" have molested the little girl, they must be terrified of the world!

 

It is indeed sad that a walk in the park/woods leads people to think the worst. It's a sad reflection on our society in more ways than one.

 

They wouldn't have talked to my daughter away from me. They wouldn't have been let in my house. Not without a lawyer present first. Sounds like very shady, suspect police work to me.

 

I can't really fault the police. They received a 911 call to which they are obligated to respond. The majority of calls they get are for good cause and the ones that come out and say, "I know why you're here and I admit I'm guilty" are almost nonexistent. But I do agree that my child will never be questioned away from me or my lawyer. Actually, make that my lawyer. I don't care what I didn't do I will not talk to the police without one present.

 

There is *no* circumstance in which I would let me kids talk to the police separately in this situation. There is no telling what these cops have been told and whether or not they are on a witch hunt. If you feel you must, at least tell the police you are not going to let them talk to your kid without a video camera recording the whole conversation.

 

I am, in fact, a lawyer and no good can ever come of letting police talk to your kids if the police are suspicious about you.

 

I have seen very compelling videos of lawyers saying don't ever talk to the police and I have been told directly by active duty law enforcement don't ever talk to the police. So if you have defense lawyers and police who typically end up on opposite sides of the table in court both telling you don't ever talk to the police, what more evidence do you need that it's a bad idea?

 

I am neither an attorney nor a police officer, but I think you are wrong. They had a phone call from an informant who said that they thought a child was being molested. That is probable cause, and at that point, they have a duty to investigate. I suspect that refusing them entry to your home, and refusing to allow them to speak to your daughter, is NOT going to convince them that everything is ok. In fact, I suspect that if one did that, one would find the police quickly returning with a social worker and a warrant.

 

First, asserting your Fourth Amendment rights in no way ever gives police reasonable cause. It's your right to refuse to let officers search your house, car, person, etc. and the burden is on them to prove they have reasonable cause. Second, the police report never mentioned any crime taking place. It only said that a man and a child were walking in what the caller deemed to be a "remote" part of the park and they weren't sure if the child was the man's? REALLY? What a revelation! They are not sure of the relationship of a total stranger? And that warrants a call to the cops? They must call 911 about 5,000 times a day if that is the yardstick they're using.

 

While I support our men and women in blue completely and I understand the hassles that go along with their job, I will never use that as an excuse for me to abandon my rights. There is only one exception to that rule but I won't go into that here because it is both personal and irrelevant to the current topic.

 

All in all though, I'm glad this ended with nothing more than a little embarrassment. Hopefully this will be an isolated incident and won't be enough to completely ruin the OP's daughter's enthusiasm for geocaching, etc.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok this is very upsetting for me, I have met angelsfan several times and he is an awesome guy. I don't understand how someone could mistake him and his daughter as anything bad such as this? Although I am not surprised about the nosey couple that called on you. When Makahummel and I went on that same trail to grab the Multi-cache we ran into a similar issue. While grabbing the "speed trap" cache a lady driving by in her car stopped and starred at us for a really long time. The friendly guy that I am gave her a nice wave when she proceeded to call someone on her cell phone and speed off. Hmmmm I wonder what we were doing wrong? As we headed down to that first waypoint we saw some people playing with there dogs but they didn't pay attention to us. About 5 mins later we saw a cop pull up in front of that first cache where the lady spied on us! haha wow! the residence around here are paranoid jerks we thought as we walked down the trail to the next wp. Nothing ever happened after that.

 

This was the same exact park which was why I was not surprised about the cops showing up, but to come to your house and ask those kind of questions is absolutely unnecessary. I will say we live in a safe crime free area, but the police department here [profanity removed] with nothing better to do then to harrahs the innocent. I'm sorry, I have been through a lot with cops and geocaching, but I never let it get me down. This game is embedded deep in my blood and will never die.

 

Sorry to hear about this bro, hopefully this problem blows over and you and your daughter(s) can still go out to enjoy a nice day of caching.

 

This comment makes me think that this may have had nothing to do about "concerned citizens" and the welfare of children. This may be all about neighbors of that park trying to keep people out of "their" park.

 

I had a hide that had to be moved because someone living near a public park didn't like people all of a sudden finding this park that they had used as their private playground.

 

Not a park, but similar just happened in my area a few days ago.

Share this post


Link to post

....but the reality is that the majority of abusers of children are a relatives or close friends of the family..

 

This right here is exactly why I didn't say that I would not allow my daughter to talk to the police under any circumstances, rather only once a lawyer was present. Obviously nothing shady was going on, so you have nothing to hide. But what's written above is fact. It's just a sad part of the times we live in.

 

What you do NOT want, is the police leading your daughter down a path via their "line of questioning", and getting her to say something that could land you in jail for a while until things get straightened out. And that kind of stuff happens more than it should. A lawyers presence tends to keep that from happening.

 

Truth be told, I don't care if it's a lawyer, my wife, or any other person that I really trust, as long as someone is there witnessing that conversation, making sure the cops are staying in bounds. And if they don't, at least there's a witness that isn't an 8 year old little girl to say so.

Share this post


Link to post

They wouldn't have talked to my daughter away from me. They wouldn't have been let in my house. Not without a lawyer present first. Sounds like very shady, suspect police work to me.

 

I can't really fault the police. They received a 911 call to which they are obligated to respond. The majority of calls they get are for good cause and the ones that come out and say, "I know why you're here and I admit I'm guilty" are almost nonexistent. But I do agree that my child will never be questioned away from me or my lawyer. Actually, make that my lawyer. I don't care what I didn't do I will not talk to the police without one present.

 

I know what you're getting at, but my problem with how the cops handled the situation lies with the fact that they didn't do anything when they were in the parking lot with the car that had been reported. If I read the story right, there were cops right there in the park as the suspect was leaving with the child. Why didn't they stop the situation right then and there and ask their questions? Why did they risk a car ride with an apparently suspected child molester before doing something about it?

Share this post


Link to post
...Truth be told, I don't care if it's a lawyer, my wife, or any other person that I really trust, as long as someone is there witnessing that conversation, making sure the cops are staying in bounds. And if they don't, at least there's a witness that isn't an 8 year old little girl to say so.

+1

 

Wow - sad incident.

 

I once had a man question why I was walking across a field with my 4 year old son. I explained I was his father and Geocaching. The man did not believe me and threatened to call the cops if I continued. I smiled and invited him to call as I continued on my way. No police showed up and I've never seen that guy again.

Edited by StarBrand

Share this post


Link to post

It really sucks that this happened.

 

It's kind of like the film cans getting blown up by the bomb squad: once that couple called the police, they HAD to respond.

The police at that point would have no probable cause to detain/question the father and daughter. As such, I seriously doubt that they would have forced them to go anywhere.

 

They had a phone call from an informant who said that they thought a child was being molested.

 

No, actually they didn't.

 

Here's the note directly from the dispatch log : "INF NOT SURE IF THE CHILD BELONGS TO THE SUBJ."

Notice there's no mention whatsoever of suspicious/criminal activity. Just a man and a child walking in a park

 

 

There's no RAS and no PC here at all. Not a shred.

Edited by EagleRiver_Baileys

Share this post


Link to post

It really sucks that this happened.

 

It's kind of like the film cans getting blown up by the bomb squad: once that couple called the police, they HAD to respond.

The police at that point would have no probable cause to detain/question the father and daughter. As such, I seriously doubt that they would have forced them to go anywhere.

 

I am neither an attorney nor a police officer, but I think you are wrong. They had a phone call from an informant who said that they thought a child was being molested. That is probable cause, and at that point, they have a duty to investigate. I suspect that refusing them entry to your home, and refusing to allow them to speak to your daughter, is NOT going to convince them that everything is ok. In fact, I suspect that if one did that, one would find the police quickly returning with a social worker and a warrant.

 

Asserting your rights is often a serious inconvenience. LEOs know that. They rely on that to get people to give up their rights. But getting a warrant and social work is also a serious inconvenience, so it's not all stacked in their favor. That said, if it comes down to it and they bring a social worker and a warrant, it's going to cost you a lot of money and time to clear things up. But you are going to be able to prevail. ....

This would be my concern. The social workers are above the law, and have no negative repercusions for harming children. I would have let the officers talk to the kid with my wife; not alone.

Share this post


Link to post

I go hiking with my daughter all the time. Since she likes to explore, we are often in unusual places, regardless of whether there is a cache nearby. I have never noticed anyone giving us strange looks, but perhaps I am desensitized to such things after caching for several years. In any event, as far as I know, no one has called the police on us.

 

In my town, even if the police came by, I would not expect them to question either me or my daughter. The other day, I double clutched when calling my wife (913 prefix) and hit 911 instead. A few minutes later, officers knocked on my door and explained they had gotten a 911 call from my home. I apologized and was embarrassed that the call had gone through, but I also wondered because what if it had been an emergency, and the victim was lying in the back of the house bleeding after I caught him or her trying to make the call.

 

In any event, if officers had shown up at my door, I might have told them that I had been in the park with my daughter. I would not have let them speak to her alone or given them her mother's address if I had already taken her home. There was no reasonable suspicion to detain me; no probable cause to do anything else based on a report that someone had seen me walking with her. There was no report of anything indicating wrongdoing. Nothing to indicate a victim was being brought someplace against her will. Nothing to indicate the girl appeared to be frightened or scared. At most, the caller was "not sure if the child belongs to the subject." If one of my clients was detained on this basis, I would be all over the officers.

 

But I understand why the OP voluntarily wanted to cooperate. And his daughter seems like she took it in stride. I would probably quote the police dispatch call in my log for the cache and perhaps embellish the story here or there for artistic effect -- something like if the crocodiles and pumas in the park were not enough, there were even stranger things afoot.

 

And let us all hope that the person who called were not abusing the dog -- I have to draw the line someplace and will not defend people who are cruel to animals.

 

With that said, another playground cache went to my ignore list a few days ago. At one time, my daughter might have given me cover in such a place. She is growing up much too fast.

Edited by mulvaney

Share this post


Link to post

They wouldn't have talked to my daughter away from me. They wouldn't have been let in my house. Not without a lawyer present first. Sounds like very shady, suspect police work to me.

 

There is *no* circumstance in which I would let me kids talk to the police separately in this situation. There is no telling what these cops have been told and whether or not they are on a witch hunt. If you feel you must, at least tell the police you are not going to let them talk to your kid without a video camera recording the whole conversation.

 

I am, in fact, a lawyer and no good can ever come of letting police talk to your kids if the police are suspicious about you.

 

it is most likely the law that you have to let them.. sad but true.. when they talk to your child, they might be grilled and possibly asked if they are telling the truth.

 

I cache with my family and sometimes my son or daughter.. if someone thought they were in danger.. plese pick up the phone.. that how the system works.. if you get a jerk of of a cop... then that is too bad.. I teach my kids that cops are nice and can be trusted.. i understand differently that they are people too..

 

nothing man ever created is or will be perfect.. especially the legal system.

Share this post


Link to post

It's kinda funny - my wife had just the opposite happen.

 

She was at a small playground with our young daughter, and there was a creepy looking guy hanging around (he didn't have a child with him). She left, and called the local police. "What do you want us to do, arrest him?" was their annoyed response. No, maybe send a car around and see what is up? Just the precense of an officer might have had him "move along."

Define "creepy looking"

I'm sure that very question went through the 911 operator's mind. Turns out being a single male is not illegal, nor is being 'creepy looking', so they did not get in a rush to send the police to the park.

 

You may be right, but the officer on the line (my wife called the local police department's non-emergency number and got the desk officer) nearly bit off my wife's head. He could have calmly said "we'll send a car around but can't do much else."

 

So... why was the guy "creepy looking"?

Share this post


Link to post

it is most likely the law that you have to let them.. sad but true.. when they talk to your child, they might be grilled and possibly asked if they are telling the truth.

 

 

No. I hope for your families sake you will do more research before something like this happens to you. It would be a very extreme case, but it could cost you your children.

Share this post


Link to post

It's kinda funny - my wife had just the opposite happen.

 

She was at a small playground with our young daughter, and there was a creepy looking guy hanging around (he didn't have a child with him). She left, and called the local police. "What do you want us to do, arrest him?" was their annoyed response. No, maybe send a car around and see what is up? Just the precense of an officer might have had him "move along."

Define "creepy looking"

 

if i saw a dog with glasses.. that be creepy.. just sayin'

 

creepyness is in the eye of the beholder.

Share this post


Link to post

They wouldn't have talked to my daughter away from me. They wouldn't have been let in my house. Not without a lawyer present first. Sounds like very shady, suspect police work to me.

 

There is *no* circumstance in which I would let me kids talk to the police separately in this situation. There is no telling what these cops have been told and whether or not they are on a witch hunt. If you feel you must, at least tell the police you are not going to let them talk to your kid without a video camera recording the whole conversation.

 

I am, in fact, a lawyer and no good can ever come of letting police talk to your kids if the police are suspicious about you.

 

it is most likely the law that you have to let them.. sad but true..

 

No. Absolutely not.

Share this post


Link to post

They wouldn't have talked to my daughter away from me. They wouldn't have been let in my house. Not without a lawyer present first. Sounds like very shady, suspect police work to me.

 

There is *no* circumstance in which I would let me kids talk to the police separately in this situation. There is no telling what these cops have been told and whether or not they are on a witch hunt. If you feel you must, at least tell the police you are not going to let them talk to your kid without a video camera recording the whole conversation.

 

I am, in fact, a lawyer and no good can ever come of letting police talk to your kids if the police are suspicious about you.

 

it is most likely the law that you have to let them.. sad but true..

FYI: Alkhalikoi is a police officer.

Share this post


Link to post

It's kinda funny - my wife had just the opposite happen.

 

She was at a small playground with our young daughter, and there was a creepy looking guy hanging around (he didn't have a child with him). She left, and called the local police. "What do you want us to do, arrest him?" was their annoyed response. No, maybe send a car around and see what is up? Just the precense of an officer might have had him "move along."

Define "creepy looking"

He had a long nose, and big ears. And giant eyeglasses.

Share this post


Link to post

They wouldn't have talked to my daughter away from me. They wouldn't have been let in my house. Not without a lawyer present first. Sounds like very shady, suspect police work to me.

 

There is *no* circumstance in which I would let me kids talk to the police separately in this situation. There is no telling what these cops have been told and whether or not they are on a witch hunt. If you feel you must, at least tell the police you are not going to let them talk to your kid without a video camera recording the whole conversation.

 

I am, in fact, a lawyer and no good can ever come of letting police talk to your kids if the police are suspicious about you.

 

it is most likely the law that you have to let them.. sad but true..

 

No. Absolutely not.

 

around here it is.. the police can show up at your kids school and ask them anything.. they MUST answer.. this is horrible policy from one point of view.. but.... if there was a problem, they need a way to find out. a child will never talk to cops about being molested with the molester present. maybe a witness has to be present too.. but the cops can question your child.

 

it's a tough problem.. if they rescue one child.. then it works. and i believe they have some success.

 

now.. if they question my kids.. there better be a witness or someone there.. there is a better way to handle it other than asking the kid to "step outside"..

 

as for something constructive to add to this thread... I would go to the chief of police or the mayors office or something. they need a better way to handle this to make sure it is done better next time. you can always take out an add in the paper to alert the community to a policy that may need improvement.

Share this post


Link to post

I just want to make sure that a very important part of this experience isn't overlooked in regards to your daughter.

 

This had absolutely nothing to do with geocaching, in fact it had absolutely nothing to do with the walk in the park. In my opinion you need to make a concerted effort to distance this unfortunate event from any of the activities that the two of you were doing.

 

It is entirely a result of an uninformed albeit well intentioned person, and a police department that has to deal with the legal ramifications of not addressing all posibilities that may crop up at a later date. Common sense is often diverted by the need to protect a department from the small minority of lawyers that disgrace the profession by creating lawsuits from nothing.

Share this post


Link to post

They wouldn't have talked to my daughter away from me. They wouldn't have been let in my house. Not without a lawyer present first. Sounds like very shady, suspect police work to me.

 

There is *no* circumstance in which I would let me kids talk to the police separately in this situation. There is no telling what these cops have been told and whether or not they are on a witch hunt. If you feel you must, at least tell the police you are not going to let them talk to your kid without a video camera recording the whole conversation.

 

I am, in fact, a lawyer and no good can ever come of letting police talk to your kids if the police are suspicious about you.

 

it is most likely the law that you have to let them.. sad but true..

 

No. Absolutely not.

 

around here it is.. the police can show up at your kids school and ask them anything.. they MUST answer.. this is horrible policy from one point of view.. but.... if there was a problem, they need a way to find out. a child will never talk to cops about being molested with the molester present. maybe a witness has to be present too.. but the cops can question your child.

 

it's a tough problem.. if they rescue one child.. then it works. and i believe they have some success.

 

now.. if they question my kids.. there better be a witness or someone there.. there is a better way to handle it other than asking the kid to "step outside"..

 

as for something constructive to add to this thread... I would go to the chief of police or the mayors office or something. they need a better way to handle this to make sure it is done better next time. you can always take out an add in the paper to alert the community to a policy that may need improvement.

 

I'd like to see this law. No offense but until I see it, I am going to doubt that such a blatantly unconstitutional law exists.

Share this post


Link to post
around here it is.. the police can show up at your kids school and ask them anything.. they MUST answer..
Or what? They'll arrest an 8 year old for obstructing a police investigation?

 

it's a tough problem.. if they rescue one child.. then it works. and i believe they have some success.
This is an incredibly slippery slope, I hope you realize. This is the same kind of feeling that leads people to allowing the TSA to use the high-radiation "naked scanners", grope their bodies, and confiscate their 4 ounce bottles of water and thinking nothing of the intrusion into their privacy.

 

now.. if they question my kids.. there better be a witness or someone there.. there is a better way to handle it other than asking the kid to "step outside"..
For anyone's kids, there needs to be a witness, preferably someone with knowledge of the law and individual rights. If only there were professionals who have had years of study in that field & could act on behalf of the family whose kids are being questioned.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I'd like to see this law. No offense but until I see it, I am going to doubt that such a blatantly unconstitutional law exists.

 

Social workers do interview suspected child abuse victims at their schools. Is that unconstitutional? We may find out soon:

 

Challenges have been brought by families claiming child abuse interviews violate the children’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unlawful government search and seizure. With the prevalence of intra family abuse, child welfare experts have found it to be both clinically appropriate and necessary to interview children separate from their parents in the familiar environment of their schools or other settings such as specially created child advocacy centers or medical settings (Portland State University School of Social Work, 2009). Federal courts are split as to the appropriate legal standard to apply in cases involving joint law enforcement and child welfare interviews of potential child abuse victims in schools.

 

In 2011 the United States Supreme Court will address this issue in Camreta v. Greene, Docket No. 09-1454.

http://www.naswil.org/news/networker/featured/since-you-asked-social-workers-and-child-protection-investigations/

Share this post


Link to post

My 8 year old and 4 year old daughters love going out geocaching with me, so it would be heartbreaking if something like this happened to us. I guess it may be best to look at this from the other side. If someone did take one of them and someone saw them and thought things were suspicious, I'd be thankful that they called the police.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I'd like to see this law. No offense but until I see it, I am going to doubt that such a blatantly unconstitutional law exists.

 

Social workers do interview suspected child abuse victims at their schools. Is that unconstitutional? We may find out soon:

 

 

Ok, but that's got nothing to do with students "must" answer police questions.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I'd like to see this law. No offense but until I see it, I am going to doubt that such a blatantly unconstitutional law exists.

 

Social workers do interview suspected child abuse victims at their schools. Is that unconstitutional? We may find out soon:

 

 

Ok, but that's got nothing to do with students "must" answer police questions.

Really?

 

You think an eight year old being interviewed by a police officer and a social worker in her school's principal's office is going to refuse to answer questions?

 

Really?

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sure that very question went through the 911 operator's mind. Turns out being a single male is not illegal, nor is being 'creepy looking', so they did not get in a rush to send the police to the park.

From Hoodwinked:

 

Red: You gotta admit: A wolf, stopping kids in the middle of the forest? That's pretty creepy!

Flippers: Right, yes. But we don't arrest people for being "creepy".

Tommy: [into walkie-talkie] Yeah, Bruce, you know that guy we got in the tank?

Bruce: [over walkie-talkie] Ah, the creepy one?

Tommy: Yeah, better let him go.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I'd like to see this law. No offense but until I see it, I am going to doubt that such a blatantly unconstitutional law exists.

 

Social workers do interview suspected child abuse victims at their schools. Is that unconstitutional? We may find out soon:

 

 

Ok, but that's got nothing to do with students "must" answer police questions.

Really?

 

You think an eight year old being interviewed by a police officer and a social worker in her school's principal's office is going to refuse to answer questions?

 

Really?

Whether a student refuses or not has nothing to do with MUST answer. Again, I'd like to see a law that a student must answer police questions.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I'd like to see this law. No offense but until I see it, I am going to doubt that such a blatantly unconstitutional law exists.

 

Social workers do interview suspected child abuse victims at their schools. Is that unconstitutional? We may find out soon:

 

 

Ok, but that's got nothing to do with students "must" answer police questions.

Really?

 

You think an eight year old being interviewed by a police officer and a social worker in her school's principal's office is going to refuse to answer questions?

 

Really?

Social workers aren't police officers.

 

When you (and your kid) are put into that situation, it's intended to intimidate & extract anything and everything that can be used against you. This is why you need a lawyer of your own involved.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I'd like to see this law. No offense but until I see it, I am going to doubt that such a blatantly unconstitutional law exists.

 

Social workers do interview suspected child abuse victims at their schools. Is that unconstitutional? We may find out soon:

 

 

Ok, but that's got nothing to do with students "must" answer police questions.

Really?

 

You think an eight year old being interviewed by a police officer and a social worker in her school's principal's office is going to refuse to answer questions?

 

Really?

Whether a student refuses or not has nothing to do with MUST answer. Again, I'd like to see a law that a student must answer police questions.

There doesn't need to be a law. An eight-year-old gets called to the principal's office. When she gets there, she is confronted by a uniformed police officer and a nice lady in a suit. They proceed to ask her questions. It's never going to cross her mind to refuse; everything in her young life has conditioned her to respond when confronted by authority symbols.

 

If it's legal for the questioning to take place, there is, in effect, a law requiring her to answer. That's one reason that the supreme court is going to consider whether it's legal for such questioning to happen, and what must be done to protect the rights of the child and whomever is being investigated.

Share this post


Link to post
I sure hope that you are wrong about that. It was a father with his daughter. They live in the same house, fer cryin' out loud!

You've just described the most common relationship between molester and victim. Once law enforcement was advised regarding a potential problem, they have an obligation to investigate the situation, to protect the welfare of the child involved. According to the OP, (once all his hyperbole is removed), that's all that happened. The officers came and talked to him. Most cops know that talking to a molestation victim in front of the molester is usually a fail. As such, if abuse is suspected, standard protocol is to bring in a child advocate to speak with the child, away from the molester. In some agencies, having the officer make first contact with the child is standard operating procedure, prior to going any further. It's obvious that, in this instance, Dad was able to dissolve any concerns the officers may have had, which was why this did not go any farther than a conversation.

 

You may now return to your cop bashing.:P

Share this post


Link to post

 

I'd like to see this law. No offense but until I see it, I am going to doubt that such a blatantly unconstitutional law exists.

 

Social workers do interview suspected child abuse victims at their schools. Is that unconstitutional? We may find out soon:

 

 

Ok, but that's got nothing to do with students "must" answer police questions.

Really?

 

You think an eight year old being interviewed by a police officer and a social worker in her school's principal's office is going to refuse to answer questions?

 

Really?

Whether a student refuses or not has nothing to do with MUST answer. Again, I'd like to see a law that a student must answer police questions.

There doesn't need to be a law.

If it's legal for the questioning to take place, there is, in effect, a law requiring her to answer.

 

No there is no law that compels a student to answer LE questions. Show it to me. There is "in effect" no such law. Simply because a police officer can ask a question doesn't mean anyone is "in effect" obliged to answer.

Share this post


Link to post

Obviously there is one solution. Go for a walk around that park every other day. Be seen with your whole family, just the wife, just one kid, both kids, etc. Make them feel miserable for calling the cops on someone exercising. Ever better... every time you see them, point them out to your children as the people who watch other people and call the cops on them. Make it obvious you are pointing at them and their dog. Don't approach them... don't talk to them in any way.

 

Just enjoy the park. Bring friends, throw a caching event (with park permission) called "Take back the Parks!" and write your story in the write-up.

 

If they approach, you have 2 choices... talk to them gently and be nice, or call the cops and say you are being harassed (again) for walking around the park and exercising. Describe them and their dog. Be loud enough to be heard and walk away so as to avoid them.

 

Let the cops visit them...

 

Ooooh, you dirty birdie. I like the way you think. :D

 

This comment makes me think that this may have had nothing to do about "concerned citizens" and the welfare of children. This may be all about neighbors of that park trying to keep people out of "their" park.

 

I had a hide that had to be moved because someone living near a public park didn't like people all of a sudden finding this park that they had used as their private playground.

 

So you took the high road on this one then. Methinks you are a better man than I then. :lol:

 

I know what you're getting at, but my problem with how the cops handled the situation lies with the fact that they didn't do anything when they were in the parking lot with the car that had been reported. If I read the story right, there were cops right there in the park as the suspect was leaving with the child. Why didn't they stop the situation right then and there and ask their questions? Why did they risk a car ride with an apparently suspected child molester before doing something about it?

 

Honestly I can't say I disagree with you. I always like to handle situations as soon as possible with as little fuss as possible at the lowest level possible, so I think I would have questioned their tactics here too.

 

 

I'd like to see this law. No offense but until I see it, I am going to doubt that such a blatantly unconstitutional law exists.

 

Social workers do interview suspected child abuse victims at their schools. Is that unconstitutional? We may find out soon:

 

Challenges have been brought by families claiming child abuse interviews violate the children’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unlawful government search and seizure. With the prevalence of intra family abuse, child welfare experts have found it to be both clinically appropriate and necessary to interview children separate from their parents in the familiar environment of their schools or other settings such as specially created child advocacy centers or medical settings (Portland State University School of Social Work, 2009). Federal courts are split as to the appropriate legal standard to apply in cases involving joint law enforcement and child welfare interviews of potential child abuse victims in schools.

 

In 2011 the United States Supreme Court will address this issue in Camreta v. Greene, Docket No. 09-1454.

http://www.naswil.org/news/networker/featured/since-you-asked-social-workers-and-child-protection-investigations/

 

I agree with the lawsuit. I don't need a meteorologist to tell me the sky is blue and I don't need a judge to tell me when such a blatant violation of my constitutional rights has been perpetrated. Your constitutional rights don't end at the front door of a school.

Share this post


Link to post

Personally I'd rather have the cops knock on my door a hundred times because my DH or I looked suspicious with our son, then to have them not knock on a door with some poor kid who needed them. Which sadly in this world could be any of our kids.

 

 

The problem I have is that the cops didn’t check it out right there at the park. What is with that? Why would they let you drive away like that? I’d be royally pissed if someone thought that it was worth calling to police on wolf and our son, but the cops waited and let them out of their sight. I seem to remember that there was more than one child molester or serial killer who convinced the cops to go on their way. If the info the OP posted was the whole story the couple was being too cautious. I would explain to my child that isn’t it nice that someone cares and what’s a little embarrassment (not that I’d have been embarrassed.) and inconvenience if it might save another child from being harmed.

 

 

I would also like to point out that we don’t know what frame of mind this couple was in when they called. Maybe they had seen an amber alert and your DD could have fit the description. Maybe they knew someone who was kidnapped and they see bad men everywhere. Maybe something horrible happened to the woman when she was young and she was just afraid that she was missing something. Unless I discovered that they were just trying to stir up trouble I’d give her credit that she cared.

 

On some of the comments that they informant never said what they suspected, frankly I don’t think the caller had to say what they thought might be going on for someone to know what they thought. They certainly didn’t call because they thought a man was having a nice day with his DD. You’re walking around somewhat aimlessly and maybe it looks like you are waiting for a good moment to duck into the woods for something nefarious. Then you vanish and return perhaps a few times… Um seems a little suspicious if you aren’t aware of geocaching. Maybe your DD was frowning at the bones or as she was observing something and they just weren’t sure. Or maybe the just don’t like strangers in their park. Who knows. But I’d be glad that someone was looking out for my child and not ignoring their feeling that maybe they should let the cops check it out just to be sure.

 

 

I think the saddest thing in this world are all the people who don’t want to or are afraid to get involved because of what someone else might think. When Wolf’s Song was 2 he took off in a store and headed straight for the door. He ducked between the baskets and I had to go around. I was yelling stop as he went thru the first set of doors and headed for the outer ones. That was when I noticed a woman stepped into the doorway. I know she heard me because she looked right at me as I was yelling stop. I almost sighed because he couldn’t get past her, and she stepped out of the way and let him by. I couldn’t believe it who lets a toddler whose mother is 15’ away and yelling stop run thru a doorway where a busy parking lot is waiting? When I related this story later someone told me “Oh I would, because people are really funny about you touching their kids and I might have gotten yelled at.” So you would rather live with the fact that you could have stopped a child from getting injured rather than having someone who would be wrong to do it chastise you over having helped their child? Not me. I want to know that I’ve always done my best to protect a child, even if they are not my child. I haven’t called on any suspicious men in parks but if I felt something wasn’t right you can bet I would. However in the situation you were I’d darn sure use my dogs to try and find out more about what you were doing before I called the cops. Some people aren’t that smart or maybe they were just afraid.

 

 

I hope your dd is feeling less anxious. I'll bet if you stop acting like it's a big deal she will settle down faster. Like someone else said make it a funny thing and laugh about it. Good luck.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
It's never going to cross her mind to refuse; everything in her young life has conditioned her to respond when confronted by authority symbols.

That's a question of how she was taught by her parents, isn't it?

 

If it's legal for the questioning to take place, there is, in effect, a law requiring her to answer.
So you're going to ignore Miranda rights and the 5th Amendment?

 

If I'm arrested the police are allowed to question me, but I am not obligated to answer. If I'm not under arrest or being detained, the police have even less grounds for compelling me to answer.

 

http://flexyourrights.org/faq

Edited by dakboy

Share this post


Link to post

 

Some types just take the whole neighborhood watch thing a little TOO seriously...

 

I actually found a cache on a Neighborhood Watch sign once.

Share this post


Link to post

The problem I have is that the cops didn't check it out right there at the park. What is with that?

We'll likely never know, unless one of the responding officers happens to be a geocacher, and happens to participate in these forums, and happens to see this thread.

Any call for service is a fluid thing, ever changing. One possible scenario that I have faced is, getting insufficient information from my comm center. I arrive at the park because I was dispatched to a suspicious persons complaint. As I arrive, I see a vehicle leaving. As a prudent officer, I make note of the tag number, then I go talk to my complainant. Prior to talking to the complainant, I have no legal reason to stop that vehicle. During this conversation, they tell me what they saw, including a description of the vehicle the so called "bad guy" left in. Having made note of the tag, once I finish speaking with the complainant, I can now go talk to the driver of the vehicle.

Was that what really happened? Who knows. But it's certainly possible.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Social workers do interview suspected child abuse victims at their schools. Is that unconstitutional? We may find out soon . . . . In 2011 the United States Supreme Court will address this issue in Camreta v. Greene, Docket No. 09-1454.

 

Lets not get too far afield from the issue raised in this thread. In Camreta, there was substantial evidence of sexual abuse. The father had been arrested for this, released, and was having unsupervised contact with his daughters. Camreta was assigned to assess the situation. Accompanied by a deputy sheriff, he went to the school and interviewed one of the girls for two hours.

 

The question before the court is whether this interview required a judicial order, parental consent, or exigent circumstances (as found by the Ninth Circuit), or whether a reviewing court should assess the reasonableness of the interview in light of the total circumstances (the Fifth Circuit standard).

 

In either case, we are a long way from what happened here -- a report that a man and a girl were seen in a park and that it was unclear whether the girl "belonged to" the man. To have reasonable suspicion to justify a detention there must be a " particularized and objective basis” for suspecting legal wrongdoing. United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002). I don't think the standard was met here. If the encounter did not rise to the level of a detention, the officer would have to depend on the voluntary cooperation of the individual.

 

If a social worker or an officer took my daughter out of school to question her because she had been seen walking in the park with me, we would have an issue under either standard.

Edited by mulvaney

Share this post


Link to post
Prior to talking to the complainant, I have no legal reason to stop that vehicle.

 

Bingo. No RAS

 

Now, I grant we have limited info but let's say you talk to the complainant and he/she says she saw these two walking in the park(the dispatch makes no mention of criminal/suspicious behavior). When you ask questions the complainant tells you nothing more than this, in other words, saw no suspicious/criminal behavior. Still no RAS. There's nothing stopping you from going to the house and asking questions but the "BG" has no obligation to speak with you or have his daughter speak with you at this point, agreed?

Edited by EagleRiver_Baileys

Share this post


Link to post
I sure hope that you are wrong about that. It was a father with his daughter. They live in the same house, fer cryin' out loud!

You've just described the most common relationship between molester and victim. Once law enforcement was advised regarding a potential problem, they have an obligation to investigate the situation, to protect the welfare of the child involved. According to the OP, (once all his hyperbole is removed), that's all that happened. The officers came and talked to him. Most cops know that talking to a molestation victim in front of the molester is usually a fail. As such, if abuse is suspected, standard protocol is to bring in a child advocate to speak with the child, away from the molester. In some agencies, having the officer make first contact with the child is standard operating procedure, prior to going any further. It's obvious that, in this instance, Dad was able to dissolve any concerns the officers may have had, which was why this did not go any farther than a conversation.

 

You may now return to your cop bashing.:P

We are not cop bashing. We are bad cop behavior bashing.

 

Those cops had no business (no reasonable suspicion) to do anything. I am fully aware that most abuse is intra-family, but the police can't come to your house and question you and your child on the basis of some stranger seeing the two of you out for a walk. That is no more reasonable suspicion than the fact that they live in the same house... that is the point I was trying to make.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd like to see this law. No offense but until I see it, I am going to doubt that such a blatantly unconstitutional law exists.

 

Social workers do interview suspected child abuse victims at their schools. Is that unconstitutional? We may find out soon:

 

 

Ok, but that's got nothing to do with students "must" answer police questions.

Really?

 

You think an eight year old being interviewed by a police officer and a social worker in her school's principal's office is going to refuse to answer questions?

 

Really?

Whether a student refuses or not has nothing to do with MUST answer. Again, I'd like to see a law that a student must answer police questions.

There doesn't need to be a law.

If it's legal for the questioning to take place, there is, in effect, a law requiring her to answer.

 

No there is no law that compels a student to answer LE questions. Show it to me. There is "in effect" no such law. Simply because a police officer can ask a question doesn't mean anyone is "in effect" obliged to answer.

You guys agree with each other. Slow down and read. :D

Share this post


Link to post

....but the reality is that the majority of abusers of children are a relatives or close friends of the family..

 

This right here is exactly why I didn't say that I would not allow my daughter to talk to the police under any circumstances, rather only once a lawyer was present. Obviously nothing shady was going on, so you have nothing to hide. But what's written above is fact. It's just a sad part of the times we live in.

 

YEP. Not sure what you'll find if you Google the following terms; Jordan, MN, Kathleen Morris. Back in the 80's, Scott County Attorney's Office darn near had an entire community ready to be arrested for child molestation and child abuse. After a lengthy investigation by higher powers, it turns out that the prosecutor, Kathleen Morris, had essentially led questioning of these children down the wrong path, basically convincing the kids that they had been molested, when in fact they weren't.

 

Interesting, the #1 hit Googling "scott county kathleen morris" yielded a People Magazine article about the woman. http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20089593,00.html

Share this post


Link to post
I hope your dd is feeling less anxious
Maybe your DD was frowning at the bones
What does DD or dd mean? The obvious answer doesn't really fit the context. Edited by Andronicus

Share this post


Link to post

And being a father of three daughters and believing that all law enforcement abuse their power at some point in their career, I am screwed..

Share this post


Link to post
I know what you're getting at, but my problem with how the cops handled the situation lies with the fact that they didn't do anything when they were in the parking lot with the car that had been reported. If I read the story right, there were cops right there in the park as the suspect was leaving with the child. Why didn't they stop the situation right then and there and ask their questions?
The problem I have is that the cops didn’t check it out right there at the park. What is with that? Why would they let you drive away like that?

You are both misreading the call log. Read it from bottom to top.

  • 6:14p Someone called the police to advise that man and child were seen off trail at park. The caller was unsure if child 'belonged' to the adult male. A description of what they were wearing was given. An officer was dispatched to the park.
  • 6:34p Officer arrived at park. Left his vehicle in the lot and started looking for the subject.
  • 6:57p Officer walked to the trailhead.
  • 7:12p The caller called back to advise the police that the people in question had just left the park.

The officer couldn't have stopped them from leaving because he wasn't in the parking lot. He was back at the trail looking for them.

Share this post


Link to post

The problem I have is that the cops didn't check it out right there at the park. What is with that?

We'll likely never know, unless one of the responding officers happens to be a geocacher, and happens to participate in these forums, and happens to see this thread.

Any call for service is a fluid thing, ever changing. One possible scenario that I have faced is, getting insufficient information from my comm center. I arrive at the park because I was dispatched to a suspicious persons complaint. As I arrive, I see a vehicle leaving. As a prudent officer, I make note of the tag number, then I go talk to my complainant. Prior to talking to the complainant, I have no legal reason to stop that vehicle. During this conversation, they tell me what they saw, including a description of the vehicle the so called "bad guy" left in. Having made note of the tag, once I finish speaking with the complainant, I can now go talk to the driver of the vehicle.

Was that what really happened? Who knows. But it's certainly possible.

The dispatch log clearly explained what had happened.

Share this post


Link to post
I hope your dd is feeling less anxious
Maybe your DD was frowning at the bones
What does DD or dd mean? The obvious answer doesn't really fit the context.

It's internet shorthand for "dear daughter." "DH" is "dear hubby", not "designated hitter" despite what the guy in the next cube running 3 fantasy baseball leagues might tell you.

Share this post


Link to post
I hope your dd is feeling less anxious
Maybe your DD was frowning at the bones
What does DD or dd mean? The obvious answer doesn't really fit the context.

I finally figured it out: dear daughter.

Share this post


Link to post
I know what you're getting at, but my problem with how the cops handled the situation lies with the fact that they didn't do anything when they were in the parking lot with the car that had been reported. If I read the story right, there were cops right there in the park as the suspect was leaving with the child. Why didn't they stop the situation right then and there and ask their questions?
The problem I have is that the cops didn’t check it out right there at the park. What is with that? Why would they let you drive away like that?

You are both misreading the call log. Read it from bottom to top.

  • 6:14p Someone called the police to advise that man and child were seen off trail at park. The caller was unsure if child 'belonged' to the adult male. A description of what they were wearing was given. An officer was dispatched to the park.
  • 6:34p Officer arrived at park. Left his vehicle in the lot and started looking for the subject.
  • 6:57p Officer walked to the trailhead.
  • 7:12p The caller called back to advise the police that the people in question had just left the park.

The officer couldn't have stopped them from leaving because he wasn't in the parking lot. He was back at the trail looking for them.

 

From the OP

 

then am walking my daughter to the truck to head home and another police car drives by very slow looking at us.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

×
×
  • Create New...