12 ms·

What the police can ask for legally and what they ask for based on a credible threat are rather different. If 99.99% of the people comply and .001% of the peop

What the police can ask for legally and what they ask for based on a credible threat are rather different. If 99.99% of the people comply and .001% of the people refuse and the cop involved slugs the non-complying person, giving them a life changing injure. and even if that cop "doesn't get away with it" - gets filmed, get drummed out of the force and the city pays a million dollar settlement, the cops, collectively, will still get away with it and keep doing it since it nearly always works. And the one cop being caught is extremely optimistic. Even with suspicion, it's unlikely that they can forcefully demand social media information. How can a cop request information in fashion that isn't forceful? The softest, most polite question is backed by the threat of both violence and arrest.

alisonkisk 5y ago
It's the same as how a burglar "can't" rob your house. Of course they can, and then you get to attempt legal recourse afterward, which sometimes works.
- joshuaissac 5y ago
  The burglar does not have qualified immunity. Burglars are routinely prosecuted and convicted for burglary. That is the difference.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    Especially given that the officers were told by higher-ups, you wouldn't want to press criminal charges against the individual officer anyways - you'd be better off with a civil suit against LAPD.
- blacksmith_tb 5y ago
  Legal recourse? I suppose people could maybe bring civil suits against burglars, but generally they face criminal charges, and you make an insurance claim?
chrisco255 5y ago
It's not that bad. No, really. If a cop pulls you over based on speeding and asks for anything else unrelated to that, you simply and politely decline. It's very rare that a cop will risk their job or go through the hassle of taking people in simply for exercising the 4th or the 5th amendment. As a citizen you have many avenues for recourse, your cynicism is unwarranted. Simply and agreeably assert your rights. More people do it than you think.
- alistairSH 5y ago
  you simply and politely decline And then the cop calls for the drug dog, and suddenly, you're dealing with a dog trained to please it's handler, which in this case means telling the cop that you have drugs in your car. And off to jail you go. As far as the cop is concerned, his thuggish behavior is now vindicated because you're a drug dealing degenerate.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    Alternatively, the cop uses a bunch of highly sensitive field drug tests on your car and gets a false positive. In america it seems that's enough to jail people. And then they lose their jobs, their home.
  - technothrasher 5y ago
    And the SCOTUS has already ruled that a cop cannot make you wait for a drug dog without probable cause (Rodriguez v. United States 2015). So in your scenario you've got a cop who is willing to break the law, and in that case all bets are off.
    - arglebarglegar 5y ago
      “I smell marijuana” is probable cause… it’s been weakened recently, but probable cause doesn’t have to be proven. “Bloodshot eyes” is another one that works for DUI cause.
    - kook_throwaway 5y ago
kodah 5y ago
> How can a cop request information in fashion that isn't forceful? The softest, most polite question is backed by the threat of both violence and arrest. This is an American-centric attitude towards government and government representatives. The power the government holds over you and I is a monopoly on violence (defined broadly) that they license to specific representatives to enact their will in order to form some loosely held cohesion among chaotic ideas. More simply put, something has to stop us from taking something that is not ours out of perceived hierarchial need. I'm a liberal man raised by classically conservative parents, the lessons I was taught as a young man were that the government by it's very nature always wants more power and to exercise that power over you. More simply put, if you give an inch the government will forcefully seize a mile. As a result I was taught that innocent men go to jail all the time for a litany of reasons, most of them bullshit to laypeople. This is the foundation of healthy distrust for government and government representatives. There are counter-balances we carry with us, as a yin and yang of sorts. So, with that explained, how does one take a request for information as non-violent? You don't. You expect that the government is willing to enact it's monopoly on you and choose to seek the most amicable (for you; which is likely less violence) solution. You exercise your fifth amendment, you request representation, and if the representatives so desire it the best you can do is hope to represent your claims at trial. Democracy is fought in the court room, not with the enforcement representatives of government.
- slapfrog 5y ago
  If there were no implicit threat of violence, I (and most other people I think) would never stop for a cop in the first place, let alone utter a word to one.
  - bwb 5y ago
    In a working system you stop because someone needs something who provides a valuable service to society. And, we are all part of what makes that system work. That said, the USA does not seem to be there yet.
    - slapfrog 5y ago
tptacek 5y ago
If a police officer has given you a life changing injury simply for refusing to disclose your Twitter account, we've left discussion of the law and what the police "can do" and entered a discussion about what to do about the problem of overtly criminal police. Nobody could have paid attention over the last 2 years (or the last 20) and come away believing there aren't criminal police officers; that is a real thing. It has not very much (some, but not very much) to do with official LAPD policy or their incident questionnaire cards. But that just brings me back to my point about the framing of this article. If The Guardian believes this question is problematic --- and I agree with them, if they do --- they should write an article about how you don't have to tell the police anything about your Twitter account just because they've stopped you on the street.
- delecti 5y ago
  > we've left discussion of the law and what the police "can do" and entered a discussion about what to do about the problem of overtly criminal police I genuinely think this point has long since come and gone. Most encounters with police are going to end fine, but there's basically no recourse in the majority of cases where they don't.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    I'm not saying that's not true, I'm just saying it's a totally different conversation. In the world you say we're in, it doesn't matter what LAPD's policies are. The police will just ignore them and do whatever they want.
    - joe_the_user 5y ago
      You're making a much too extreme dichotomy. The situation is that American police are generally there to enforce the law, generally follow policy but, depending on area, are infested with a minority of types who use or threaten violence whenever it makes their job easier or simply serves their ego. And these forces also tend to have a much larger group who won't say anything about the overt criminals - out of conformity, alienation from civilians or because the intimidation factor is convenient to them. This situation, that is effectively well publicized at this point, fundamentally changes the way police and civilians relation because it goes a lot of police actions a threatening quality and so, as I said earlier, it's hard to have question appear "optional" to the average person stopped by the police.
spywaregorilla 5y ago
> How can a cop request information in fashion that isn't forceful? The softest, most polite question is backed by the threat of both violence and arrest. With a smile and a calm voice. Do you really believe every single cop is going to punch you if you don't comply?
dragonwriter 5y ago
> How can a cop request information in fashion that isn't forceful? They can explicitly inform you that you are under no obligation to accede to the request and will face no adverse consequences if you choose not to. Except where explicitly legally mandated to do so, they do not tend to this, specifically because even if it is true, they wish people to perceive and act upon an implicit threat of violence for noncompliance.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
More likely they give the .001% the 20 questions and maybe a K9 routine that they give everyone who they deem "interesting".
OneEyedRobot 5y ago
>How can a cop request information in fashion that isn't forceful? The softest, most polite question is backed by the threat of both violence and arrest. I agree, but also they are pretty well trained in scripts for extracting confessions/assent for searches/etc. People simply don't know the law and there's always the hope you'll catch a break. If Live PD were still on, you'd notice how often the same phrases are used throughout the US. It all sounds like a lawyer wrote scripts for traffic stops and that those training materials were used nationwide. 'honesty goes with me a long way' 'you are being detained you are not under arrest' or whatever.
d1sxeyes 5y ago
This really is the key question here. If my boss is making small talk, and asks what I did at the weekend, of course I am under no obligation to tell him. I can tell him it's none of his business, and I'm quite within my rights to do so. Some people would. But in the long run, whether it's right or wrong, not answering probably makes my life harder (passed over for promotions, etc.). So I don't ask this question from those who report to me, because I can't easily ask it in a way that doesn't seem to carry an obligation to reply. And neither I nor my boss have a gun and a pair of handcuffs.

alisonkisk 5y ago

It's the same as how a burglar "can't" rob your house. Of course they can, and then you get to attempt legal recourse afterward, which sometimes works.

joshuaissac 5y ago
The burglar does not have qualified immunity. Burglars are routinely prosecuted and convicted for burglary. That is the difference.
- judge2020 5y ago
  Especially given that the officers were told by higher-ups, you wouldn't want to press criminal charges against the individual officer anyways - you'd be better off with a civil suit against LAPD.
blacksmith_tb 5y ago
Legal recourse? I suppose people could maybe bring civil suits against burglars, but generally they face criminal charges, and you make an insurance claim?

chrisco255 5y ago

It's not that bad. No, really. If a cop pulls you over based on speeding and asks for anything else unrelated to that, you simply and politely decline. It's very rare that a cop will risk their job or go through the hassle of taking people in simply for exercising the 4th or the 5th amendment. As a citizen you have many avenues for recourse, your cynicism is unwarranted. Simply and agreeably assert your rights. More people do it than you think.

alistairSH 5y ago
you simply and politely decline And then the cop calls for the drug dog, and suddenly, you're dealing with a dog trained to please it's handler, which in this case means telling the cop that you have drugs in your car. And off to jail you go. As far as the cop is concerned, his thuggish behavior is now vindicated because you're a drug dealing degenerate.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Alternatively, the cop uses a bunch of highly sensitive field drug tests on your car and gets a false positive. In america it seems that's enough to jail people. And then they lose their jobs, their home.
- technothrasher 5y ago
  And the SCOTUS has already ruled that a cop cannot make you wait for a drug dog without probable cause (Rodriguez v. United States 2015). So in your scenario you've got a cop who is willing to break the law, and in that case all bets are off.
  - arglebarglegar 5y ago
    “I smell marijuana” is probable cause… it’s been weakened recently, but probable cause doesn’t have to be proven. “Bloodshot eyes” is another one that works for DUI cause.
  - kook_throwaway 5y ago

kodah 5y ago

> How can a cop request information in fashion that isn't forceful? The softest, most polite question is backed by the threat of both violence and arrest. This is an American-centric attitude towards government and government representatives. The power the government holds over you and I is a monopoly on violence (defined broadly) that they license to specific representatives to enact their will in order to form some loosely held cohesion among chaotic ideas. More simply put, something has to stop us from taking something that is not ours out of perceived hierarchial need. I'm a liberal man raised by classically conservative parents, the lessons I was taught as a young man were that the government by it's very nature always wants more power and to exercise that power over you. More simply put, if you give an inch the government will forcefully seize a mile. As a result I was taught that innocent men go to jail all the time for a litany of reasons, most of them bullshit to laypeople. This is the foundation of healthy distrust for government and government representatives. There are counter-balances we carry with us, as a yin and yang of sorts. So, with that explained, how does one take a request for information as non-violent? You don't. You expect that the government is willing to enact it's monopoly on you and choose to seek the most amicable (for you; which is likely less violence) solution. You exercise your fifth amendment, you request representation, and if the representatives so desire it the best you can do is hope to represent your claims at trial. Democracy is fought in the court room, not with the enforcement representatives of government.

slapfrog 5y ago
If there were no implicit threat of violence, I (and most other people I think) would never stop for a cop in the first place, let alone utter a word to one.
- bwb 5y ago
  In a working system you stop because someone needs something who provides a valuable service to society. And, we are all part of what makes that system work. That said, the USA does not seem to be there yet.
  - slapfrog 5y ago

tptacek 5y ago

If a police officer has given you a life changing injury simply for refusing to disclose your Twitter account, we've left discussion of the law and what the police "can do" and entered a discussion about what to do about the problem of overtly criminal police. Nobody could have paid attention over the last 2 years (or the last 20) and come away believing there aren't criminal police officers; that is a real thing. It has not very much (some, but not very much) to do with official LAPD policy or their incident questionnaire cards. But that just brings me back to my point about the framing of this article. If The Guardian believes this question is problematic --- and I agree with them, if they do --- they should write an article about how you don't have to tell the police anything about your Twitter account just because they've stopped you on the street.

delecti 5y ago
> we've left discussion of the law and what the police "can do" and entered a discussion about what to do about the problem of overtly criminal police I genuinely think this point has long since come and gone. Most encounters with police are going to end fine, but there's basically no recourse in the majority of cases where they don't.
- tptacek 5y ago
  I'm not saying that's not true, I'm just saying it's a totally different conversation. In the world you say we're in, it doesn't matter what LAPD's policies are. The police will just ignore them and do whatever they want.
  - joe_the_user 5y ago
    You're making a much too extreme dichotomy. The situation is that American police are generally there to enforce the law, generally follow policy but, depending on area, are infested with a minority of types who use or threaten violence whenever it makes their job easier or simply serves their ego. And these forces also tend to have a much larger group who won't say anything about the overt criminals - out of conformity, alienation from civilians or because the intimidation factor is convenient to them. This situation, that is effectively well publicized at this point, fundamentally changes the way police and civilians relation because it goes a lot of police actions a threatening quality and so, as I said earlier, it's hard to have question appear "optional" to the average person stopped by the police.

spywaregorilla 5y ago

> How can a cop request information in fashion that isn't forceful? The softest, most polite question is backed by the threat of both violence and arrest. With a smile and a calm voice. Do you really believe every single cop is going to punch you if you don't comply?

dragonwriter 5y ago

> How can a cop request information in fashion that isn't forceful? They can explicitly inform you that you are under no obligation to accede to the request and will face no adverse consequences if you choose not to. Except where explicitly legally mandated to do so, they do not tend to this, specifically because even if it is true, they wish people to perceive and act upon an implicit threat of violence for noncompliance.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

More likely they give the .001% the 20 questions and maybe a K9 routine that they give everyone who they deem "interesting".

OneEyedRobot 5y ago

>How can a cop request information in fashion that isn't forceful? The softest, most polite question is backed by the threat of both violence and arrest. I agree, but also they are pretty well trained in scripts for extracting confessions/assent for searches/etc. People simply don't know the law and there's always the hope you'll catch a break. If Live PD were still on, you'd notice how often the same phrases are used throughout the US. It all sounds like a lawyer wrote scripts for traffic stops and that those training materials were used nationwide. 'honesty goes with me a long way' 'you are being detained you are not under arrest' or whatever.

d1sxeyes 5y ago

This really is the key question here. If my boss is making small talk, and asks what I did at the weekend, of course I am under no obligation to tell him. I can tell him it's none of his business, and I'm quite within my rights to do so. Some people would. But in the long run, whether it's right or wrong, not answering probably makes my life harder (passed over for promotions, etc.). So I don't ask this question from those who report to me, because I can't easily ask it in a way that doesn't seem to carry an obligation to reply. And neither I nor my boss have a gun and a pair of handcuffs.