Geocaching, Dc, & The Fbi

1.4k · January 28, 2005

We started with a person that was by the first account in a public area during the day and just acting a little different.

I understand what you are trying to say. Like I said, I don't know the laws of DC concering who can be where and when so I hate to comment on DC but I can comment about here.

If a citizen here sees another citizen acting 'different' and is concerned they can (and do) call the police. The call taker takes the call and hands it to a dispatcher who then dispatches the call via voice or MDT.

As the responding officer I then have probable cause to approach the person who is acting 'different' even though they may be in a public area. I can and will do a brief investigation.

In the OP's post, we don't know if someone saw them acting 'different' and was concerned enough to call the police. There are many variables and as I have stated, there are always two sides to every story.

Trust me, I enjoy my rights as much as anyone else but along with those rights come responsibilities and one of those responsibilities is to not impede a lawful investigation by a police officer.

20.7k · January 28, 2005

...However, Native Americans are not immigrants into the United States. Rather, the political entity "the United States of America" could be said to have "immigrated" onto the Native Americans.
...

By your definition, if our forefathers came here prior to the revolution, we are native americans?

January 28, 2005

We know yours is bigger. We're just compensating.

Thank you for noticing.

5.3k · January 28, 2005

I hate to break it to you but I am not being a jerk or unqualified if it takes me 20 mins to do an investigation.

Well both times I was quaetioned it took 4-5 minutes. Not 20, even if an ID is requested (In my case it was not) it takes less than a minute to run an ID. Taking 20 minutes to run a check on someone for being in a publis place is nonsence.

Trust me, I enjoy my rights as much as anyone else but along with those rights come responsibilities and one of those responsibilities is to not impede a lawful investigation by a police officer.

And LEOs should impede the lawfull activities of the people the pay them

Edited January 28, 2005 by JohnnyVegas

2.5k · January 28, 2005

I hate to break it to you but I am not being a jerk or unqualified if it takes me 20 mins to do an investigation.

Well both times I was quaetioned it took 4-5 minutes. Not 20, even if an ID is requested (In my case it was not) it takes less than a minute to run an ID. Taking 20 minutes to run a check on someone for being in a publis place is nonsence.

Perhaps it only takes 4-5 minutes to quaetion somebody, but a full 20 to actually question them?

1.4k · January 28, 2005

I can question you in 4-5 minutes but a thorough investigation including checking ID can and will take a few more minutes than that. Heck, I have to manually write out traffic citations and that alone can take 5 minutes not including the initial contact and the running of the ID.

January 28, 2005

Like I said, I don't know the laws of DC ...

We all know about the laws in DC. If you are a crack smoking mayor you can still hold public office.

So has any one seen a crack smoking mayor on the trails while caching? I am just trying to keep it on topic. Hey it's all I got.

20.7k · January 28, 2005

If a LEO has to take 20 minutes to figure what someone is doing, well he is being a jerk or is an not qualified for the job.

I hate to break it to you but I am not being a jerk or unqualified if it takes me 20 mins to do an investigation.

I hate to break it to you, but (back to the original scenario) to detain someone just for 30 minutes just because you can't get your computers to work is unreasonable. I also believe that if you are sitting in your car with your partner out with me and you have my license (because you have yet to jot down my info) you are detaining me improperly, if I was merely wandering around a public place with a gps and a pda. Obviously, I have no freedom to leave as you have gone with my license.

1.4k · January 28, 2005

We all know about the laws in DC. If you are a crack smoking mayor you can still hold public office.

LOL that is very true

As I stated earlier, this thread is on topic and, for the most part, been extremely civil.

5.3k · January 28, 2005

Not to badmouth them, but the FBI is not exactly known for it's street cop abilities.

I know a guy that went into the FBI right out of college, he has all the street smarts of a Marshmellow

1.4k · January 28, 2005

I hate to break it to you, but (back to the original scenario) to detain someone just for 30 minutes just because you can't get your computers to work is unreasonable. I also believe that if you are sitting in your car with your partner out with me and you have my license (because you have yet to jot down my info) you are detaining me improperly, if I was merely wandering around a public place with a gps and a pda. Obviously, I have no freedom to leave as you have gone with my license.

1) Like I said, technology isn't perfect. However, like I said I would never detain longer than about 20 mins due to technology issues.

2) I don't have a partner, I have to do everything by myself. That includes the initial contact, running of IDs, writing of citations, conferring with superiors if there is a question and the final contact.

3) I once again will state if you think you have been 'wronged' then you should contact a lawyer. That is also one of your rights but odds are if you have only been detained for 20 minutes when an officer had probable cause there isn't going to be much the lawyer will be able to do for you. 20 minutes is not an unreasonable amount of time for a contact such as we are discussing.

20.7k · January 28, 2005

...
Trust me, I enjoy my rights as much as anyone else but along with those rights come responsibilities and one of those responsibilities is to not impede a lawful investigation by a police officer.

I think your right, as far as it goes. These investigative powers are not all encompassing, however.

January 28, 2005

And LEOs should impede the lawfull activities of the people the pay them

Man I have to tell ya' I agree with your point but pulling out the "I pay your salary" argument never cuts in my book. Those folks are well aware of how they get paid.

20.7k · January 28, 2005

2) I don't have a partner, I have to do everything by myself.

I was discussing the issue as described by the OP. Whether you actually have a partner is of no consequence to me.

That is also one of your rights but odds are if you have only been detained for 20 minutes when an officer had probable cause there isn't going to be much the lawyer will be able to do for you. 20 minutes is not an unreasonable amount of time for a contact such as we are discussing.

On this we are not in agreement. I do not believe that these FBI agents had probable cause to detain the OP for 20 minutes. If I was the one being questioned, I would have asked if I could go after a couple of minutes.

Let's stop changing the scenario. What would you do if you spotted a fellow with a pda and a gpsr on a saturday in an area of your town that is known to attract tourists? Would you have probable cause to detain them for 20 minutes?

Edited January 28, 2005 by sbell111

January 28, 2005

if you have only been detained for 20 minutes when an officer had probable cause there isn't going to be much the lawyer will be able to do for you.

Aren't you confusing something? If you have a probable cause you have to make an arrest.

20.7k · January 28, 2005

Aren't you confusing something? If you have a probable cause you have to make an arrest.

He meant 'reasonable suspicion'.

edited to fix ugly typo. Boy, I'm tired.

Edited January 28, 2005 by sbell111

1.4k · January 28, 2005

Would you have probable cause to detain them for 20 minutes?

Yep, if I had received a call that someone was acting differently. If I observed the behavior of the individual personally I would have to make my own determination and in the case of government buildings and property being involved and how they were acting I might consider that I had probable cause.

January 28, 2005

Aren't you confusing something? If you have a probable cause you have to make an arrest.

He meant 'reasonable suspician'.

Yes, that would be the correct term.

So, can someone tell me exactly what is the "reasonable suspicion" when someone walks with a PDA in hand? What is he suspected to be doing? If there is reasonable suspicion, the officer must be able to explicitly state what this suspicion is.

1.4k · January 28, 2005

Aren't you confusing something? If you have a probable cause you have to make an arrest.

Have to make an arrest? Where did you get this information? This is the most bizzare thing I have heard in a long time.

20.7k · January 28, 2005

Jeff, you changed the scenario again.

1.4k · January 28, 2005

Reasonable suspicion?

Where I live and work we don't have such a thing.... we have probable cause. I can't detain someone based on suspicion. I must have probable cause or a warrant.

Dare I ask where in the USA someone can be detained for reasonable suspicion?

Edited January 28, 2005 by jeff35080

20.7k · January 28, 2005

Have to make an arrest? Where did you get this information? This is the most bizzare thing I have heard in a long time.

This goes back to the misuse of the term 'probable cause'. If you had probable cause to believe that I had committed a felony or if you witnessed me committing a misdemeanor, you would be duty bound to arrest me. If I was wherever you are in Alabama.

20.7k · January 28, 2005

Reasonable suspicion?

Where I live and work we don't have such a thing.... we have probable cause. I can't detain someone based on suspicion. I must have probable cause or a warrant.

Dare I ask where in the USA someone can be detained for reasonable suspicion?

The Supremes ruled that if you have reasonable suspicion that I committed a crime, you could ask me for my license and briefly question me. (Is there a yawning Smily?)

edited to fix the same irritating typo as before.

Edited January 28, 2005 by sbell111

1.4k · January 28, 2005

If you had probable cause to believe that I had committed a felony or if you witnessed me committing a misdemeanor, you would be duty bound to arrest me.

Uh.... so the OP is now a felon? I think you are the one changing scenarios sbell. Probable cause, in the scenario we are discusssing, gives me the right to detain you and does not mean that you will be arrested.

January 28, 2005

Aren't you confusing something? If you have a probable cause you have to make an arrest.

Have to make an arrest? Where did you get this information? This is the most bizzare thing I have heard in a long time.

I was reading this legal stuff yesterday. Reasonable suspicion justifies a Terry stop, probable cause justifies an arrest. If a police officer has a probable cause I think his job is to make an arrest.

1.4k · January 28, 2005

The Supremes ruled that if you have reasonable suspician that I committed a crime, you could ask me for my license and briefly question me.

Oh... you mean probable cause

20.7k · January 28, 2005

Again, that's reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. And you may not actually detain me unless you have probable cause that I have committed a felony (or you witnessed a misdemeanor).

20.7k · January 28, 2005

AS77 has it. Jeff, not so much.

January 28, 2005

Again, that's reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. And you may not actually detain me unless you have probable cause that I have committed a felony (or you witnessed a misdemeanor).

Not true. The Terry stop is detention, too, based on reasonable suspicion. Only difference from an arrest is that it has to be short.

20.7k · January 28, 2005

You're right. I said it right a few posts up, but was too brief in the more recent one.

2.7k · January 28, 2005

So what's the logic behind considering GPSrs suspicious? Did the terrorists of the WTC actually walk to the WTC with a yellow eTrex in hand to record its coordinates so that their buddies who flew the planes could enter the coords in their eTrexes and find the towers based on that?

So what's the logic behind keeping tabs on middle eastern men in the US learning to take off and fly commercial aircraft, but leaving the classes before learing how to land. It isn't like they are planning to fly the planes in to anything.

Hindsight is 20/20. Just because something hasn't happened in the past doesn't mean that it can't happen in the future.

1.4k · January 28, 2005

Sorry sbell, I misunderstood what you were trying to say.....

Let's look at a traffic violation i.e. a misdemeanor... I do have to witness it to stop and detain you.

If you match the description of someone that has committed a crime I can request your ID.

I think we're back on the same page now

20.7k · January 28, 2005

So what's the logic behind keeping tabs on middle eastern men in the US learning to take off and fly commercial aircraft, but leaving the classes before learing how to land. It isn't like they are planning to fly the planes in to anything.

Hindsight is 20/20. Just because something hasn't happened in the past doesn't mean that it can't happen in the future.

I get your point, but I flashed on my wife. When we were undergrads, she was learning how to fly. The thing is she hated landings. They are difficult and scary. Therefore, many times early on, she got her instructor to land the plane. It was no big deal, but she wasn't going to earn her license until she mastered the skill. Oh, BTW, she never did fly into anything.

The second part of your post concerns me. It appears to make the argument that anyone who ever uses anything that could be connected to a terrorist act should be stopped and questioned. I guess that I should stop using a cel phone, huh?

7.3k · January 28, 2005

I like caching, I like it a lot.

Actually, this all serves as a reminder to everybody. You're technically supposed to have a picture ID on you at all times, even if you are not driving. Granted, this is not practical in some situations, but obviously when you are traveling, you should have it on you. You need to be able to prove who you are at all times.

1.4k · January 28, 2005

You're technically supposed to have a picture ID on you at all times, even if you are not driving

I'll beat sbell to this one..... why am I supposed to have a picture ID on me at all times?!?!?!?!?!

20.7k · January 28, 2005

I think she was being ironic.

January 28, 2005

I think we're back on the same page now

Man I hope so because I was reasonably confused.

1.4k · January 28, 2005

I think she was being ironic.

I didn't see the 'tongue-in-cheek' emoticon

20.7k · January 28, 2005

It does bring up a good point, though. As a LEO, what do you do if you stop to question a person for being goofy and they have no ID? What if they not only don't have a license on them but are not licensed? After all, they were only walking on a public sidewalk?

I'm not trying to single you out, Jeff, I am just interested in your point of view.

7.3k · January 28, 2005

You're technically supposed to have a picture ID on you at all times, even if you are not driving

I'll beat sbell to this one..... why am I supposed to have a picture ID on me at all times?!?!?!?!?!

Actually, it's true. Suppose in this situation from the OP, he did not have any form of ID on him, how much longer he could of been detained?

Whenever I am traveling well outside of my home, I keep my liscence on me, even if my husband is driving, and even if I am just walking around. It just makes life that much easier.

7.3k · January 28, 2005

I had actually heard somewhere that if you are stopped anywhere in the U.S. by an officer that you are technically required to have ID on you. I don't know if that is true, or how much they actually enforce it, but in this day and age you can never be too carefull.

20.7k · January 28, 2005

I wonder if thats just a myth.

I have friends that live in the City who don't drive. Therefore, they don't have licenses.

1.4k · January 28, 2005

It does bring up a good point, though. As a LEO, what do you do if you stop to question a person for being goofy and they have no ID? What if they not only don't have a license on them but are not licensed? After all, they were only walking on a public sidewalk?

Good question and it's not so easy to answer.

I guess it depends on the 'goofy' factor. It's one thing for a person with a mental problem or the typical drunk vagrant not to have ID and it's another thing to find someone creeping around the sidewalk in front of a business at night with burglar tools in their possession.

Yeah, that's two extremes so I'll try to explain. In the case of the vagrant I probably wouldn't lose any sleep about not being able to identify the person. After all, they were only acting goofy and I can tell they have a mental defect. In the second example would want to identify this person for a written report should we later find that businesses along the sidewalk had been burglarized. I would arrest him for possession of burglar tools and take him to jail where he wouldn't be released until he could be positively identified.

This question is really one where there's lots of shades of grey. I'm sure you know what I mean. There is no requirement to have ID to walk on the sidewalk but it sure does make it easier if an officer decides he needs to know who you are

Did that kinda make sense?

20.7k · January 28, 2005

It does. I wonder what would happen to the OP if he didn't have his ID.

7.3k · January 28, 2005

I wonder if thats just a myth.

I have friends that live in the City who don't drive. Therefore, they don't have licenses.

Even if you don't drive, it's a good idea to get an ID. You get them at the DMV, they look just like a liscence, but your head is turned a different way to show that you aren't a driver.

January 28, 2005

No offense to traeumer (original poster)....but there is always two sides to a story.

We have no knowledge of what information the FBI officials were actually acting upon when they first approached traeumer. For all we know, there was someone they were looking for that had the characteristics as that of traeumer at they time they stopped him for questioning.

Just my thoughts.....

GeoMike

1.4k · January 28, 2005

I don't know.... the supposed FBI agents might just have decided to detain him a bit longer in order to positively identify him

1.4k · January 28, 2005

they look just like a liscence, but your head is turned a different way to show that you aren't a driver.

I think you mean a state ID card. Here in Alabama your picture is the same, looking straight ahead but the actual ID card is colored differently than that of a driver license.

20.7k · January 28, 2005

I bet it makes cashing a check a whole lot easier.

7.3k · January 28, 2005

they look just like a liscence, but your head is turned a different way to show that you aren't a driver.

I think you mean a state ID card. Here in Alabama your picture is the same, looking straight ahead but the actual ID card is colored differently than that of a driver license.

Hmmm...maybe things have changed since I got my ID at age 14...

Geocaching, Dc, & The Fbi

Recommended Posts