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?"

[Henrietta]

"Well, I don't know that it was illegal... "

It is. The Supreme Court says so.


"he could have asked for an attorney, he could have asked them to take him down town, he could have TOLD THE WOMAN WHO WANTED TO CALL THE POLICE WHO HE WAS... "

There was no indication that the woman with the phone ever asked him what he was doing. He had no duty to answer the cops' questions, and they had no right to detain him. He didn't need an attorney; all he needed to do was assert his rights. It's just that the cops did not respect them.

[1rudeboy]

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?

LOL

[AnAmericanMother]

Maybe she WAS easily baited. Point is, if you set out to deliberately frighten someone not all that long after 9-11, it's sorta like shouting "BOMB!" on an airplane. Sure, you were just joking. Sure, they were on edge. But don't be surprised when something happens.

[Michael.SF.]

You make perfect sense. Chick Hearn said it best:

"No harm, no foul"

But I note the response you got from the poster: Yes, but only after one side illegally detained the other for an hour and a half.

See the police were wrong because this guy refused to cooperate with a reasonable request. He shows ID, he is gone, case closed. No harm no foul.

But a reasonable cop, acting on a call, has a man in custody who refuses co-operation. He plays a hunch and decides to check it out further. And some people place the blame on him.

See the problem?

In other words, the police are wrong for a minor inconvenience, which could have been avoided by the 'victim' in the first place. Yes, I believe henretta is a democrat lurker, she has to be. real Republicans make sense, like you do.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

WHY DIDN'T HE WALK AWAY, IF HE WANTED TO?

Think about it, he is a REPORTER! If he had walked away, maybe then, they would have arrested him, THEN he could sue them for false arrest, and test his theory about how the Constitution protects him... he would have won big, too. Instead, he blathers on, and earns a buck. My guess is he is less concerned about his rights as an American, than he is about the BIG STORY.

[Henrietta]

"Well, there you go again. You you are really sounding more and more like a democrat. In that you stoop to insult (no, I did not flunk civics), you refuse to listen to reasonable opinions, which are contrary to your own, you think you are smarter then everyone else, and you have no logic to your arguments."

Wow. And on a Tuesday night...

Look, I'm just a little frustrated here that no one seems to have an appreciation for their rights as citizens, nor are they willing to support other citizens who assert their rights. And your having flunked civics was the only reason I could possibly imagine why you would be unaware of what your rights are. Maybe you just forgot. I really wasn't trying to be nasty, and I'm sorry if I offended you.

Now, you said: "Well Miss, then he should not complain when his refusal to do so causes a delay in his daily routine, should he?"

Yes, he should absolutely complain. The cops had no right to interrupt his daily routine and demand his I.D.

You asked: "Answer one question: At what point do you feel the cops were out of line in this story?

was it:
a) When they responded to the cal regarding a suspicious man?
b) was it when they asked for his ID?
c) was it when they waited for confirmation of who he said he was?"

It was somewhat after point b. They overstepped the bounds of the law (and thus became criminals) when they detained him for refusing to produce I.D.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Thank you! To me, it is just logic... why cry about what didn't happen, what could have happened, what might have happened... when there is really no issue!

That's liberals for you... just add emotion and argument, do not support your claims with FACTS.

[1rudeboy]

Citizens don't have to answer questions put to them by police. The Supreme Court says so. See Terry.

Unless I am mistaken, Terry was an unreasonable search and seizure case involving whether a subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy in an automobile. Could you please elaborate?

[george wythe]

I agree.

There are certains jokes that are out of place.

Our cops got the blame, but suspects and reporting citizens may have behaved poorly in both cases.

[Henrietta]

"See the police were wrong because this guy refused to cooperate with a reasonable request."

No Mike, their request was unreasonable, per the Supreme Court.

"In other words, the police are wrong for a minor inconvenience, which could have been avoided by the 'victim' in the first place. "

The Supreme Court does not consider the illegal seizure of a citizen to be a minor inconvenience. I recommend you read the Terry case to see exactly what sort of language they used to condemn this sort of thing.

I'm pro-civil liberties, so I must be a DemoRat...give me a break! Your arguments are the ones that are devoid of logic, facts, and supported by law.

[Henrietta]

No, it was about what the standard is for a detention and frisk of a person. No auto was involved. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

[Pan_Yans Wife]

WHY HASN'T THE REPORTER FILED A CIVIL SUIT AGAINST THE POLICE? Any attorney would take his case, in a heartbeat.

[Michael.SF.]

Look, I'm just a little frustrated here that no one seems to have an appreciation for their rights as citizens, nor are they willing to support other citizens who assert their rights. And your having flunked civics was the only reason I could possibly imagine why you would be unaware of what your rights are. Maybe you just forgot. I really wasn't trying to be nasty, and I'm sorry if I offended you.

Apology accepted.

Now with cooler head prevaling, let me take another approach: There is an old saying, one you I am sure have heard. The rights of your fist stop, when it reaches my face.

The Police have a duty to protect us all. In doing so, they have to make judgements, and judgements are prone to human error. So how does a cop judge somebody, having met him for the first time and knowing that they received a call of 'suspicious' activity'?

Put yourself in their shoes and ask how would you have handled it?

As for me, if a cop thought I was doing something suspicious, he has my full cooperation. By our making their job easier, they can better protect all of us.

This guy does not have a leg to stand on. I do not see where producing an ID is a major cause celebre (sp?) for a leftist reporter.

[AnAmericanMother]

Our cops got the blame, but suspects and reporting citizens may have behaved poorly in both cases.

Agreed. I think the real problem here is that we're in a whole new ball game after 9-11 and with the war on in Iraq. Everybody's nervous, especially the cops who are going to be blamed for any screwup, and nobody's quite sure how much the rules have changed.

Which is why it's especially annoying when somebody like this reporter sets out to give the cops a hard time, and then is so offended when they give him one back. Everybody needs to show a little more good will here, especially the reporter.

[Henrietta]

"Thank you! To me, it is just logic... why cry about what didn't happen, what could have happened, what might have happened... when there is really no issue!"

It's funny that you mention this, because one of Mike's last posts to me was something along the lines of "What if he had been a terrorist, and had blown up the Lincoln Memorial and killed Miss Marple's class." It didn't happen, and Mike thinks that the fact that it could have happened justifies the police illegally arresting someone. Ironic, no?

"That's liberals for you... just add emotion and argument, do not support your claims with FACTS."

The FACTS here are that the police illegally detained a citizen. I did not make up this law, the Supreme Court did. We as a society cannot tolerate this sort of behavior if we wish to remain free.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Isn't there also the concept of active participation as citizens, in protecting ourselves? It first makes me think of "citizen's arrest", but... wouldn't his cooperating with the police, as all of us have been asked to do, at one time or another, be part of being a citizen?

Have you ever had a policeman question you about goings on in your neighborhood? They ask for information, write down your name and number, will look into things, etc... all of this entails active participation. The police protect us, because we help them to protect us, right? It's a give and take relationship.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Okay, they broke the law, and he didn't cooperate. Why hasn't he sued them? I think the writer protests too much about how much harm this caused him. Because, if your statements are true, and the police held him illegally, he has a duty to file and complaint and sue them, to protect the rest of us, right? Where is the other half of the equation? He is not a responsible citizen, and not a good example of a defender of our freedom. He sounds like a blathering coward, now.

[Henrietta]

"The Police have a duty to protect us all."

No, they don't. The S.C. has ruled that the police have no particularized duty to protect any citizen.

"Put yourself in their shoes and ask how would you have handled it?"

I would have followed the law that I swore to uphold, and if the guy did not want to talk to me, and I did not have any reasonable and articulable suspicion that he had or was about to commit a crime, I would've maybe hung around and watched him for awhile to see if his behavior was truly suspicious. Otherwise I'd just leave him alone, as I was required by law to do.

"As for me, if a cop thought I was doing something suspicious, he has my full cooperation. By our making their job easier, they can better protect all of us."

If a cop thought I was doing something suspicious, I'd want him to either arrest me, or leave me alone. It's not my job to make his job easier, it's his job to respect my rights as a citizen and not abuse them. I don't think that this is too much to ask, that the cops follow the law, do you?

"This guy does not have a leg to stand on. I do not see where producing an ID is a major cause celebre (sp?) for a leftist reporter. "

This guy does have a leg to stand on, and if he thought it were worth his trouble, would probably have no trouble finding a lawyer willing to take his case on contingency. Illegal arrest is a major deal, and should be dealt with appropriately. The principle here is that you don't have to show I.D. just because the police ask for it; the fact that it would have been a minor inconvenience for him is not the point. I'm glad he stuck to his guns. And I don't care if he's a leftist. He's still in the right here, and principle is more important than politics.

[Henrietta]

"Why hasn't he sued them? I think the writer protests too much about how much harm this caused him. Because, if your statements are true, and the police held him illegally, he has a duty to file and complaint and sue them, to protect the rest of us, right? "

Darn right! We need to nip this in the bud. Whether he is a "good citizen" or not, his rights still need to be respected.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

He doesn't care about being a citizen... he cares about the story, about the speculation that he fits the profile of being a terrorist, because of his race. He does not see the bigger picture. It is one thing to b-tch about Homeland Security, it is another to DO SOMETHING! He is a coward.