If you have no indication of when an encounter progresses from "voluntary" to "involuntary", then the entire encounter must be considered "involuntary" based on the progression.Jumping Frog wrote:We do not need to rely upon some secret signal or handshake from an LEO to see where a line crosses from voluntary interaction to being detained. I figure my decisions and behavior are up to me: "Officer, respectfully, am I free to leave or am I being detained?"LabRat wrote:Jumping Frog:
I don't believe a "reasonable" person will always and without error be able to tell when an encounter progresses from "voluntary" to "involuntary"...that distinction exists only in the mind of the police officer from moment to moment. Some signs are self-evident, however many are not.
I doubt there is a line that officers use to alert a citizen about the moment when the encounter changes. Once the officer makes up his mind about a RAS or PC, I'm doubt he will tell the citizen that information at the first possible moment.
I believe that a reasonable person might conclude that ANY encounter with a police officer is not a "Hi, how'r ya doin'?" chance encounter. I believe that a reasonable person would conclude that if an officer just walks up and starts talking
He doesn't need to tell me why I am being detained and I am not going to argue with him on the sidewalk. But he will have to explain to a judge.
Similarly, if I am told that I am going to be searched, my answer is a simple, "I do not consent to a search, but I will comply."
He can explain the legal justification for the search to the judge.
In neither scenario will my choice be to flee the officer or to shoot at him.
You can ask if you're being detained if you want to force the officer's hand in the encounter. That may or may not work in your favor. The individual police officer's receptiveness to such a request is as variable as there are people in the world. I would say that in many cases, the judge you decide to tell your side of the story to will most likely give the police officer the benefit of the doubt - a move that is likely to be detrimental to your case.
Most folks develop a view of dealing with the police from watching TV or getting a traffic citation. On TV, the cops always get the suspect to talk and tell them what they want to know and in traffic court, the driver always loses the case (well, 99% of the time....but, conviction rates are pretty high). So, people don't have any experience in dealing with the police. They don't know when an encounter becomes "involuntary".
Fleeing the police is not the way to handle the situation. However, if you think that you will always lose when you come up against a police officer or are subjected to a court system where the outcome is always bad for you, then running might seem to be a natural response. Even if you're not guilty of anything and the encounter is voluntary, running may seem to be the only option you have given the other possible outcomes.
You've given this a lot of thought about asking if you're being detained, am I free to go, etc. Most folks don't do that because they're caught up in their lives. So them being unaware of what their rights and liberties are is not something that can be changed on a moments notice. Even you said "I don't consent to any searches, but I will comply." I bet there's a police officer and a DA that could persuade a judge you consented when you said you'd comply.
Nothing is ever cut and dried and comes out the way it should.
LabRat