Replies

"Sure is. If the police have "probable cause" based on your actions they can detain you and question you."

Not exactly. They have to have "reasonable and articulable suspicion" that you have committed, or are about to commit, a crime. Last time I looked, asking questions about shiny things in trees and taking pictures was not a crime.

Now I realize that we are under an "orange alert" and all, but if the cops wanted to stop and frisk this guy, then they should have waited until they had a R & A suspicion. Why not just keep an eye on him for awhile, and then step in an start asking questions? Why attempt to escalate things and intimidate people by calling for backup? Why didn't they just answer this citizen's questions?

This reporter had every right to be what some of you are calling "uncooperative." People have the right to go about their business unmolested by the police or anyone else. Where are we headed as a society if we all are now forced to justify why we are doing what we are doing just because some guy in a uniform asks?

I'll probably get flamed for standing up for our rights to be left alone, but it wouldn't be the first time...asbestos panties on!

It's a non-story. I went and read the whole thing and he had several things against him. One, he fit the Middle-Eastern profile. Two, he was doing things in a manner that terrorists were doing. Three, he was already reported by someone else. Four, he did it at this time specifically to obtain a response. Now, were reinforcements necessary? I'd say no -- that was a judgement call on the cop's part. But on the other hand, the officer was acting on the side of safety. I've had the local boys in blue call for reinforcements on me before, too. Did I think it silly? Yup. Did I think their hysteria overrated? Yup. But I didn't have three characteristics of a potential terrorist, either. The guy doesn't have much right to complain.

The asbestos panties line was a gem, though.

Where are we headed as a society if we all are now forced to justify why we are doing what we are doing just because some guy in a uniform asks?

I guess that depends on what you are doing and saying. 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?

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?

Around here (GA) it's been refined into three levels of police inquiry:

1. A policeman may ask a citizen polite questions at any time. He may not impede your progress to do so, however. Inquiries have to be very basic and generic - what's your name? where are you going? - and (here's the key) the citizen does not have to answer. You can simply say, "I'm sorry, I don't wish to talk at this time" and go on your merry way. The GA courts have reversed convictions when the police dogged somebody who said he did not want to talk.

2. The "Terry" stop requires "reasonable and articulable suspicion" which as a practical matter does not mean they have to believe you have committed a particular crime, just that you are acting suspicious. Hostility, random or inconsistent or irrational answers to basic questions, sweating or other nervous behavior, etc.

3. Probable cause essentially means they would have sufficient evidence to put before a magistrate to get a warrant. That's the highest standard. Usually probable cause issues revolve around car stops, where the police don't have time to go get a warrant because the car will drive off . . .

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.

I was wondering how far down the thread I'd have to go before I finall found someone willing to question the need of these officers to harass this guy. Yours was response #32. Seems that the number of folks who remember that this was once a free country are decreasing by the hour.

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.

I'm sure some of you folks out there will think the cops did just wonderful because they didn't decide to bash the guy's head in or arrest him for having the nerve to believe he had the riht to question them, but that is exactly a symtom of the problem.

I'll probably get flamed for standing up for our rights to be left alone, but it wouldn't be the first time...asbestos panties on!

You're right, you should get flamed. This has absolutely nothing to do with being left alone. You are not even trying to understand what is going on. This race card playing, agitating, conservative- hating reporter was setting this up the whole time. He made the confrontation occur singlehandedly. I pray the law enforcement officers respond in this manner every time.

"This reporter had every right to be what some of you are calling "uncooperative." People have the right to go about their business unmolested by the police or anyone else. Where are we headed as a society if we all are now forced to justify why we are doing what we are doing just because some guy in a uniform asks?"

The police had been called, and therefore they had a duty to ask the reporter what he was doing. He owed the police officers doing their job a civil reply - that he was doing his job, perhaps. If he had done that, there would have been no issue. He did not do that. He challenged police trying to determine what he was doing because it looked suspicious. (He - the reporter - was not just walking along the sidewalk innocently. He was snooping or certainly appeared to be.) The police not knowing what they were dealing with called for back-up when he would not answer their simple question; correct action. As I read it, the hostile Washington Post reporter asked for trouble and got some.

If the police come up and start frisking him without telling him anything, that would be illegal and highly suspect. However, the police are trained to follow Standard Operating Procedures. One of those is to ask for ID. NO MATTER WHAT THE STOP IS. If you are broke down on a bridge with your blinkers on, a cop will stop and ask if everything is alright. But you can bet your bottom dollar that the police officer will ask you for you ID before he or she leaves. It is SOP. Just like those punks on the Florida toll road last year. The police stopped them and instead of cooperating, they stonewalled. Fine. You want to play, we can play. Stay here until we get a court order to search your car. It will take several hours. You want to not show me ID? Fine, we can play that game too. Just tell the cop, hey, I'm a reporter for the ComPost, I see signs to report things which are suspicious. This looks suspicious and I was wondering what it is and who should I call. Cop - after checking out ID - says, Mr. Miloy, it is a such-and-such device. It checks the air-quality in case we are attacked. Also, cops don't do one-on-one. Think of it as a small version of what we do in war time. Massive firepower to intimidate.