Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ok i just parked my truck in a walmart parking my mission was just to grab a gallon of milk when 2 police cruisers pulled up in front and behind me and started asking questions when my truck was turned off then the officer noticed something in the door trim above my head then searched the truck my question is is it legal or not for them to have made contact with me and then send the suspected drugs to the lab and then issue an indictment for my arrest...?

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, adjusterjack said:

You haven't said why they stopped you or what they saw and how they saw it so I have no idea how to answer your question.

 

Door trim above your head?

 

They never made a traffic stop they just pulled up on me in the parking lot came up to the window and started talking then there was a piece of paper above my head tucked in the trim of the car door

 

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Likemike said:

is is it legal or not for them to have made contact with me

 

This is an oddly phrased question.  Are you suggesting that you thought it might be illegal for police to "make contact with" a person just for the heck of it?  Restrictions apply to stops and detentions.  The police are as free as anyone else to walk up to you and start talking to you.

 

 

13 hours ago, Likemike said:

the officer noticed something in the door trim above my head then searched the truck

 

I guess that the "something" was suspected illegal drugs.

 

 

14 hours ago, Likemike said:

and then send the suspected drugs to the lab and then issue an indictment for my arrest...?

 

If suspected illegal drugs were found as a result of a legal search, then of course it was legal to send those drugs to a lab and to arrest you.

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/7/2019 at 9:50 AM, pg1067 said:

The police are as free as anyone else to walk up to you and start talking to you.

 

Only if the person is free to walk away, or in this case would be to drive off without having any to respond to any of the questions being asked by the officers.    

Quote

 when 2 police cruisers pulled up in front and behind me and started asking questions

 

However, if accurate then the above quote would clearly demonstrates that he was being detained by the officers. 

On 6/6/2019 at 7:49 PM, Likemike said:

my question is is it legal or not for them to have made contact with me a

 

That would depend upon whether you had to identify yourself to them or not I would think, but I am not a lawyer so your best bet is to consult with one that is.  

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/8/2019 at 10:01 PM, VeraCaUSA said:
On 6/7/2019 at 7:50 AM, pg1067 said:

The police are as free as anyone else to walk up to you and start talking to you.

 

Only if the person is free to walk away, or in this case would be to drive off without having any to respond to any of the questions being asked by the officers.

 

My statement was correct as written.  The police are no different than anyone else.  There's no law prohibiting the police or anyone else from walking up to you and striking up a conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, pg1067 said:

 

My statement was correct as written.  The police are no different than anyone else.  There's no law prohibiting the police or anyone else from walking up to you and striking up a conversation.

 

Your statement that anyone else could have done the same thing that the poster described happened to him is totally bogus. 

 

For one, the poster's  statement was that the police officers parked their cars  in front of and behind his vehicle while he was sitting in their vehicle in and of itself would indicate that either officer, or both officers were knowingly restraining the liberty of the poster. So  in my opinion a person doesn't' have a privilege to block your vehicle in so they can strike up a conversation with you.  Neither did the police officers  have the privilege to restraint the poster unless they had probable cause that a crime had been committed, or was about to be committed prior to detaining him.  If you going to give your advice to somebody then at least give it in context of the question being asked.   😐

 

On 6/6/2019 at 7:49 PM, Likemike said:

Ok i just parked my truck in a walmart parking my mission was just to grab a gallon of milk when 2 police cruisers pulled up in front and behind me and started asking questions when my truck was turned off then the officer noticed something in the door trim above my head then searched the truck my question is is it legal or not for them to have made contact with me and then send the suspected drugs to the lab and then issue an indictment for my arrest...?

 

And yes there are laws which prevent a person from walking up to someone and striking up a conversation even if they are not restraining the person in the process.  

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, VeraCaUSA said:

And yes there are laws which prevent a person from walking up to someone and striking up a conversation even if they are not restraining the person in the process.  

 

Do tell.

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, VeraCaUSA said:

And yes there are laws which prevent a person from walking up to someone and striking up a conversation even if they are not restraining the person in the process.

 

Please cite such a law.  If you are unable to cite such a law, on what basis do you make this claim?

 

 

31 minutes ago, VeraCaUSA said:

Your statement that anyone else could have done the same thing that the poster described happened to him is totally bogus.

 

I never made such a statement.  My statement that "[t]he police are as free as anyone else to walk up to you and start talking to you" was obviously a general statement and was not specific to the OP's situation.  Also note that the OP's question was not whether it was legal for the cops to park in front of and behind the OP's vehicle.  Rather, the OP's question was whether it was "legal or not for [the police] to have made contact with" the OP.  I noted that it was an oddly phrased question.  However, phrased as it was, I answered it in a legally correct manner.

 

 

34 minutes ago, VeraCaUSA said:

If you going to give your advice to somebody then at least give it in context of the question being asked.

 

Thanks for the advice.  Here's some for you that is very specific to the present context:  seek to improve your reading comprehension before choosing to pick a fight on a message board.

Share this post


Link to post

And yes there are laws which prevent a person from walking up to someone and striking up a conversation even if they are not restraining the person in the process.

 

Put your money where youmouth is. Post a link to such a statute.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, pg1067 said:

P

50 minutes ago, VeraCaUSA said:

And yes there are laws which prevent a person from walking up to someone and striking up a conversation even if they are not restraining the person in the process.  

Please cite such a law.  If you are unable to cite such a law, on what basis do you make this claim?


Let's start with solicitation of prostitution for one,  (Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.21).  While the communication to compel might not have to be verbal, it still would not give a person a right to walk up to someone and bring up that conversation subject.     

So yes, a person, even a police officer does not have a right to simply walk up to someone and start any conversation they want therefore in conclusion, the subject matter of the conversation does matter.  

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, VeraCaUSA said:

Let's start with solicitation of prostitution for one,  (Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.21).  While the communication to compel might not have to be verbal, it still would not give a person a right to walk up to someone and bring up that conversation subject.

 

That's not even close to being on topic.  You claimed that "there are laws which prevent a person from walking up to someone and striking up a conversation even if they are [sic] not restraining the person in the process."  A law that criminalizes the solicitation of prostitution is not even close to such a law.

 

So again, can you cite any law that prohibits one person from walking up to another person and striking up a conversation?  Or you could just admit that you made that up.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, VeraCaUSA said:

Let's start with solicitation of prostitution for one,  (Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.21). 

 

PG1067 is right about your lack of reading comprehension. That statute addresses forcing others to engage in prostitution. Like procuring minors for the pleasure of pedophiles or pimps beating up women and sending them out on the streets with the threat of more beatings if they don't bring back money.

 

https://law.justia.com/codes/ohio/2018/title-29/chapter-2907/section-2907.21/

 

It has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, PayrollHRGuy said:

Weak try.

 

The topic, in that case, is what would be illegal not the conversation itself. And the illegal act doesn't even have to be mentioned in conversation.

Solicitation according to Black's Law dictionary is the asking; enticing; urgent request.. 

 If it is your opinion that a person can  walk up and ask someone to have sex for money is legal then  of course you are right.  But if you can't then you are wrong.  You can twist it any way you want but you asked for a example where a person couldn't walk up and start a conversation and I gave you one.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, adjusterjack said:

 

PG1067 is right about your lack of reading comprehension. That statute addresses forcing others to engage in prostitution. Like procuring minors for the pleasure of pedophiles or pimps beating up women and sending them out on the streets with the threat of more beatings if they don't bring back money.

 

https://law.justia.com/codes/ohio/2018/title-29/chapter-2907/section-2907.21/

 

It has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

 

A) No person shall knowingly do any of the following:

(1) Compel another to engage in sexual activity for hire;

(2) Induce, procure, encourage, solicit, request, or otherwise facilitate either of the following:

a) A minor to engage in sexual activity for hire, whether or not the offender knows the age of the minor;

(b) A person the offender believes to be a minor to engage in sexual activity for hire, whether or not the person is a minor.

Black's law dictionary defines solicit as:  1. To seek or to plead, to entreat and ask. 2. To lure or tempt a person.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, VeraCaUSA said:

Solicitation according to Black's Law dictionary is the asking; enticing; urgent request.. 

 If it is your opinion that a person can  walk up and ask someone to have sex for money is legal then  of course you are right.  But if you can't then you are wrong.  You can twist it any way you want but you asked for a example where a person couldn't walk up and start a conversation and I gave you one.  

 

 

You gave an example of an illegal act that could happen during a conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/10/2019 at 11:07 PM, VeraCaUSA said:

 

A) No person shall knowingly do any of the following:

(1) Compel another to engage in sexual activity for hire;

(2) Induce, procure, encourage, solicit, request, or otherwise facilitate either of the following:

a) A minor to engage in sexual activity for hire, whether or not the offender knows the age of the minor;

(b) A person the offender believes to be a minor to engage in sexual activity for hire, whether or not the person is a minor.

Black's law dictionary defines solicit as:  1. To seek or to plead, to entreat and ask. 2. To lure or tempt a person.

 

Wow talk about doing some Olympic style contorting on that one. You are trying to split hairs but are on the wrong side. That law does not make the conversation  itself illegal, just the content of it. You could go and strike up a conversation with anyone and talk to them for hours on end and it be legal. But the second you asked them to do a specific act it would then be illegal. The words and intent would make it illegal, not the act of conversing with someone. Also it does not specify that it would need to be a conversation. You could pass a note, send an email, old fashion snail mail, or any other way you could get your request across. So no this does not come close to "prevent a person from walking up to someone and striking up a conversation even if they are not restraining the person in the process". It just prevents someone from going up to someone and asking for a specific thing. 

 

 

On 6/9/2019 at 1:01 AM, VeraCaUSA said:

 

Only if the person is free to walk away, or in this case would be to drive off without having any to respond to any of the questions being asked by the officers.    

 

That is close, but cot completely accurate. The supreme court has sated "one must not look at whether a party felt "free to leave," but whether a party felt free to decline or terminate the encounter. The Court held that in the absence of intimidation or harassment, Bostick could have refused the search request. The test of whether a "reasonable person" felt free to decline or terminate a search presupposes his or her innocence."

 

This case dealt with a consent search but has been used as the standard for consensual encounters. Even in cases where police have blocked in vehicles, that did not automatically convert it to a 4th amendment seizure.

 

On 6/9/2019 at 1:01 AM, VeraCaUSA said:

However, if accurate then the above quote would clearly demonstrates that he was being detained by the officers. 

 

No this would not clearly demonstrate that. The OP stated he pulled into Walmart with the intent to go inside. Last I checked you couldn't drive a truck into Walmart to get milk. Clearly the OP would have to park his vehicle and get out.The officers could have legally parked their vehicles to the front and rear of OP's truck after he stopped. He never stated that he was blocked in, if they activated their lights, or if the used some other form of authority to make him believe he was not free terminate the encounter. Just that one was positioned to the front, and one to the rear of his truck. Beyond that the OP stated his intent was to presumably walk  inside the store to pick up milk. If his truck was temporarily blocked by the parked cruisers this would not stop or obstruct him from merely walking inside as he had already planned prior to the encounter.

 

 

On 6/9/2019 at 1:01 AM, VeraCaUSA said:

That would depend upon whether you had to identify yourself to them or not I would think, but I am not a lawyer so your best bet is to consult with one that is.  

 

No you are clearly not a lawyer and should definitely do some research before posting advice and getting into arguments with people who have clearly done that.

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/11/2019 at 11:48 PM, Fuzzz said:

That is close, but cot completely accurate. The supreme court has sated "one must not look at whether a party felt "free to leave," but whether a party felt free to decline or terminate the encounter. The Court held that in the absence of intimidation or harassment, Bostick could have refused the search request. The test of whether a "reasonable person" felt free to decline or terminate a search presupposes his or her innocence."

 

This case dealt with a consent search but has been used as the standard for consensual encounters. Even in cases where police have blocked in vehicles, that did not automatically convert it to a 4th amendment seizure.

You are talking about Florida v. Bostick where as part of a drug interdiction effort, Broward County Sheriff's Department officers routinely board buses at scheduled stops and ask passengers for permission to search their luggage. Two officers boarded respondent Bostick's bus and, without articulable suspicion, questioned him and requested his consent to search his luggage for drugs, advising him of his right to refuse.  [ Note: whether or not Bostick gave his consent is a matter in dispute.]

 

In fact the dissenting opinion of the Court stated  the facts of the case "exhibit all of the elements of coercion associated with a typical bus sweep." The officers wore jackets displaying the logo of the Broward County Sheriff's Department and brandished their badges. One of them carried a gun. They cornered Bostick at the back of the bus, blocking the aisle so that Bostick could not leave.  While Justice O'Connor relies on the fact that the officers reminded Bostick he could refuse consent to the search, Justice Marshall points out that if Bostick had been unreasonably seized before they posed that question to Bostick, his consent was irrelevant. 

 

The principle of the 4th Amendment has not changed, so you need to look into what unreasonably seized represents as the U.S. Supreme Court held in Brown v. Texas. The US Supreme Court held "The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct.  Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable."    

 

IMO anyone who doesn't have a problem with the State asking its citizens to voluntarily surrender their U.S. Constitutional Rights obviously wouldn't have a problem with the State asking it citizens to voluntarily surrender all of their U.S. Constitutional rights.  No need to be your written consent, your word is sufficient.

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/11/2019 at 11:48 PM, Fuzzz said:

 

No you are clearly not a lawyer and should definitely do some research before posting advice and getting into arguments with people who have clearly done that.

 

LOL, I imagine that one will sting when the bright line comes around. 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...