Reporter doesn't like questioning

Washington Post ^ | 3/24/03 | Courtlan Milloy

[Tspud1]

Something Suspicious Is in the Air

By Courtland Milloy Monday, March 24, 2003; Page B01

The sign above the highway leading into the nation's capital advised motorists to "Report Suspicious Activity" and gave an 800 number for the Office of Homeland Security. As a reporter, I figured this was right up my alley and set out yesterday to report on things that struck me as suspicious.

For instance, near the Jefferson Memorial, I saw a five-foot-tall metal box that was hooked up to an electrical outlet and equipped with a high-tech antenna and chrome-dome receptor. What was it?

I asked a couple of National Park Service workers and some Cherry Blossom Festival organizers whose tent was set up next to the thing if they knew. Little did I know that my inquiry would become a suspicious activity in itself.

"We hear you've been asking curious questions," U.S. Park Police officer Michael Ramirez said as he and fellow officer Karl Spilde approached me from behind a blossomless cherry tree. "Why are you doing that?"

Both officers carried 9mm semiautomatic pistols, Mace and batons. Perhaps because I had just left the Jefferson Memorial, where I'd read a few lines about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and "all men are created equal," I felt bold enough to pose a question of my own: "Why are you asking me that?"

[TigersEye]

My first thought after reading it was "What a dick!" My second thought, though, was that he has a point.

Funny. Those were my first two thoughts ... in reverse order.

[delacoert]

Yeah, posts 45 and 48 are so chock-full of reasoned debate.

Taken out of context, Courtland Milloy's story of injustice might be a springboard for outrage at over the top police harassment. In the context of who he is, what he stands for, the tensions in Washington DC now, and his own sanitized admission of what he up to, I stand by my statement that he is a wiseass who got the response he deserved.

I do admit that a one and a half hour detention wasn't warranted, and maybe my attitude could use adjustment, but I can't help but see a little justice in what happened to the whiny little shit.

[Copernicus]

Frankly, given the climate in D.C. these days and this guy's behavior (asking pointed questions and taking photos of odd stuff, enough for a citizen to call the cops, plus the belligerence when questioned) it's probably enough for a Terry. If he had been polite instead of evasive and rude when questioned, they probably would have thanked him and walked off. (But if they had wound up finding contraband on him in the pat-down and busting him, I think a GA court would have affirmed the conviction.) When you learn from the article that he was deliberately baiting the police -- then the police WERE right to have an articulable suspicion that something was up. Call it a false report of a crime.

People would do well to read Catch 22, a novel which set the standard for reasonable behaviour.

Yossarian wants to be relieved from bombing duty because the missions are driving him crazy.

Unknowingly, he passed the test of "Catch 22": you can't be crazy if you think you are crazy; consequently you must be fit for duty.

Only if you DON'T think you are crazy are you unfit for duty because only a crazy person would respond to the stress of bombing duty by insisting he wasn't crazy.

It is highly unlikely a true terrorist would sass a police officer while on a reconnassince mission.

He/she would have a cover story ready, be very polite and produce any (false) ID requested of him/her.

He/she would certainly not attract attention by asking naive and obvious questions.

Ipso, ergo and therefore said reporter did not fit the profile of a potential terrorist by his very behaviour.

Put yourself in the position of LEO's, Airport Security and Prison Guards.

Would you prefer to deal with someone who is geniunely innocuous and live to collect your pension?

Or would you rather confront someone who is a serious threat capable of killing you overtly or covertly in every encounter?

Most career bureaucrats choose to play it safe than sorry with "busywork" transactions.

Best regards,

[TigersEye]

Exactly! We need to know what is going on here, and even though this reported is undoubtedly a Leftist idiot, I still appreciate the fact that he's exposing some of the abuses going on "for our own safety."

What abuse? His behaviour perfectly mimicked that of a hostile agent in the act of making recon surveillance. He acted nothing like an ordinary citizen taking pictures at the park or a concerned citizen looking to uncover some suspicious plot.

[Henrietta]

"So far you still haven't taken a crack at answering my questions in post #44."

I'll take a stab at your questions:

"If he was really concerned about suspicious objects in the park wouldn't he have immediately identified himself and layed out his suspicions to the first authority figure to come along? Wouldn't he have been actively seeking one out?"

The article didn't say that he was concerned about the objects in the park, merely that he was curious about them. He did ask a couple of National Park Service employees, and some Cherry Blossom Festival organizers what the object was, and apparently did not get an answer. I note that the cops did not volunteer to tell him what it was. Why not? Why were they being beligerent and evasive with a citizen?

"Instead he was evasive and antagonistic. What is a cop supposed to think when that is coupled with a report that he was photographing equipment and taking notes?"

I think that a cop is supposed to think, "Here is a citizen, whom I have sworn to protect and serve, and he is asking me a reasonable question about why I want to see his I.D., and so I should answer his question." Instead of assuming the worst, why didn't the cop just observe what was going on instead of trying to bully the guy by calling for backup, which is really just thinly disguised intimidation? Why did the cop become evasive and belligerent when asked a question?

I know that these responses probably won't satisfy you, because you feel differently about this situtation than I do. That's your right.

[Copernicus]

Posted to *CCRM

[Henrietta]

"Yeah, posts 45 and 48 are so chock-full of reasoned debate."

Post 45 is not mine. Post 48 was a comment to a fellow poster, and not intended to be debate.

Anything else?

[Henrietta]

I think that what this guy, leftist idiot or not, was subjected to was an abuse of police power. You don't "detain" someone for an hour and a half for taking pictures. The cops were 'way out of line, here, in my opinion.

[Michael.SF.]

With all due respect, I have to disagree. First look at the conversation from the officers POV:

Officer: “We hear you've been asking curious questions. Why are you doing that?

Unknown Person: "Why are you asking me that?"

Officer: "Let me see your ID,"

UP: "Why?" I asked.

Officer: "Call for backup,"

UP: “Was I being arrested?”

Officer: “ No, you are not. You are just subject to "investigative detention."

Officer II: "There have been reports of suspicious activity regarding you."

UP: "By whom?"

Officer UP: "Can't tell you that,"

UP "What kind of suspicious activity?"

Officer: "Apparently you have been showing interest in equipment on the grounds, making notes, that sort of thing. Are you interested in talking to us about what you're doing?"

UP: “ I simply want to know what kind of machine it was.

Officer II: "Are you aware of the current threat level?"

*****

Now, take into consideration the time, the place and the level of alert we are in today. the cops do not know this guy from Adam. They ask him numerous questions and get evasive responses, and are (in essence) being accused themselves, by the suspect. He was being uncooperative enough to cause them to request back up. Even after back up is called for he still is unresponsive.

Do I expect everyone to grovel for the cops? No.

Do I expect a cop to get proper responses to reasonable questions? Yes.

Have you or anyone you know ever been pulled over by a cop or asked questions by one? If so, did you act in such a way that they felt back up was required?

This guy was way out of line, and no constitutional right would have been violated if they took him downtown for questioning.

Primary reason would be failure to co-operate with a police officer. Charges are not filed for everyone the police take downtown for questioning.

[Henrietta]

"This guy was way out of line, and no constitutional right would have been violated if they took him downtown for questioning.

Primary reason would be failure to co-operate with a police officer. Charges are not filed for everyone the police take downtown for questioning."

You must have flunked your Civics class. Taking someone to the station is also called an "arrest" and to arrest someone you have to have probable cause. Don't take my word for it, ask the Supreme Court. Failure to cooperate with police is NOT probable cause to arrest someone, according to the Supreme Court. His Constitutional rights were violated by the 1 1/2 hour "detention" (really an illegal arrest) to which he was subjected.

It's really exasperating to have to explain to people what their rights are. Why don't people know this stuff?

[TigersEye]

You're right, I do feel differently about this story. Thank you for answering though.

I note that the cops did not volunteer to tell him what it was. Why not?

Because he didn't ask them. Their first question to him was the perfect opening to ask it. "We hear you've been asking curious questions, ... Why are you doing that?" But his response was "Why are you asking me that?".

[Contra]

For anyone who doesn't know Courtland Milloy, he's the Ramsey Clark of journalism.

[Henrietta]

"But his response was "Why are you asking me that?""

That would have been my response, too. Why would they care what he was asking? Doesn't he have a right to know why they want to know? What harm was his question?

[Henrietta]

"For anyone who doesn't know Courtland Milloy, he's the Ramsey Clark of journalism."

Who's Ramsey Clark?

[TigersEye]

You don't "detain" someone for an hour and a half for taking pictures.

You're right but they didn't. I gave the probable reasons he was detained in post #54.

[delacoert]

For anyone who doesn't know Courtland Milloy, he's the Ramsey Clark of journalism.

I, for one, appreciate the effort, but context doesn't appear to matter to some.

[Henrietta]

He wasn't merely detained, he was subject to an illegal arrest. (Detentions magically transform themselves into "arrests" past a certain time point) The "reasons" you gave do not pass Constitutional muster, per Terry.

[Michael.SF.]

If we're ever going to return to a state where we are Citizens of the Republic, rather than merely subjects of civil authority, we're going to have to question the actions of those authorities who seem to think they are too important to provide civil answers to reasonable people.

Interesting.

Now, for a moment lets say we agree to live in a civilized society, where certain people are intrusted to protect us from certain other people. Would you then agree with the following statement:

If we're ever going to return to a state where we can walk safely any where at any time, rather than always fearing the possibility of a crime or a terrorist attack, we're going to have to expect answers from those people who seem to think they are too important, or do not want to be bothered by authorities, and refuse to provide civil answers to reasonable questions.

It works both ways, friend.

Second question:

At what point in the story, which was articulated, were the officers expected to determine this guy was a "reasonable guy" and on what basis were they to make this judgement?

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

This sounds exactly like the crap I've read in my local college newspaper. Sophmoric to say the least. The black guy has a chip on his shoulder...

[weegee]

I'm suspicious of the Washington Post for wanting age,sex, and location information before I can read an article. The LA Times and NY Times require even more information to get access to online materials.

I've registered with the NY Times because at least they are professional enough to permit FR to cite articles in full for discussion. The WP and LAT prohibit FR from using full articles.

Everybody wants information on people. I feel that police working security detail are more justified in asking for it than a newspaper.