View Full Version : Law for Backpackers
The Weasel
12-15-2006, 15:02
It's said that, "Third time's the charm." I hope so. I've read a large number of private messages in the last seveal days, and more public ones. I'm going to do things differently here than I've done before, and hope others will as well.
This thread is for questions and answers about legal issues that can affect backpackers, particularly on the AT, but elsewhere as well. It's governed by the special rules for "Straight Forward," found here. http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12441 It is my wish that this thread remain in that Forum. Readers can help me make that possible.
Anyone can post a question. I'll try to answer most. I've been a lawyer for 34 years, and I'm admitted in Michigan and California, whose laws are often very similar to the other 54 or so American states and territories. As to differences, for many situations, I'll try to do a little research if I can. Others who are lawyers, law enforcement officers, or otherwise have special training or knowledge of a legal issue are encouraged to answer as well, including disagreeing with and correcting me. If you are such a person, please say so, so that readers will know you have some knowledge of the topic.
As I've done before, I discourage those who are not trained or experienced in a particular area from stating what they think the law may be. There are a lot of reasons for that, and this request isn't meant to offend others. But law can be very complex, even on topics that seem simple.
The goal here is to both help people with questions they have, and to come up with a consolidated "article" to post on WhiteBlaze. By asking questions that are "on topic", you help WhiteBlaze as well as yourself.
Please remember that statements of law here are not intended to serve as legal advice for specific situations. With any specific issue that affects you, please consult with a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction.
Thank you.
Edited due to deviation from stated intent of forum
Pacific Tortuga
12-15-2006, 15:29
I cannot think of a single reason for needing a lawer while backpacking on the AT or any other trail. The Weasel, what have you heard or felt needed to be addressed by the law on the Trail ?
The Old Fhart
12-15-2006, 15:35
Edited due to deviation from stated intent of forum
Edited due to deviation from stated intent of forum
The Weasel
12-15-2006, 15:47
I cannot think of a single reason for needing a lawer while backpacking on the AT or any other trail. The Weasel, what have you heard or felt needed to be addressed by the law on the Trail ?
Go to Post #1 in the first "Backpacker Law 101" thread, or see the thread about the guy who got hassled - bad - in Erwin recently. Then maybe read some of the first thread until it had problems. Topics included,
- Police stops
- "Vagrancy"
- Drug/alcohol usage
- Littering
quite a bit more.
The Weasel
The Weasel
12-15-2006, 15:48
Edited due to deviation from stated intent of forum
The Weasel
12-15-2006, 15:49
Edited due to deviation from stated intent of forum
OK, Weasel. I've got one for you. I remember down South, being accosted, surrounded, and quite threatened by feral dogs. If I should happen to kill or injure one these, am I in any way liable? I'm assuming not. Let's assume that this occurs on the trail or a roadwalk, or in any case, public property.
Edited due to deviation from stated intent of forum
The Weasel
12-15-2006, 16:18
OK, Weasel. I've got one for you. I remember down South, being accosted, surrounded, and quite threatened by feral dogs. If I should happen to kill or injure one these, am I in any way liable? I'm assuming not. Let's assume that this occurs on the trail or a roadwalk, or in any case, public property.
Well, let's get the terms clear, first:
"Feral" refers to "wild" animals, as opposed to "domestic" ones. Domestic animals are generally those species and breeds that have, over time, been domesticated, such as cattle, horses, cats and dogs. "Feral" animals are the rest, such as alligators, wolves, and terrapins, which are generally born and live their lives in the wild. So "feral dog" is a contradiction, just as "domesticated chimpanzee" is. The former is a "domestic" animal, and the latter is "feral", despite where they may at a given moment be living.
Sometimes, however "feral" is applied to wild dogs and cats (and in GSMNP) to pigs that have bred in the wild and grown up without any actual domestication. If that's what you're referring to, OK. Other times, animals are referred to as "wild" when they are strays (once domesticated but abandoned or allowed to run free in violation of leash laws). You might be referring to those.
If the dogs were really "feral" (i.e. totally wild, not mere strays) then local animal laws would apply the same as if the animal was, say, a wolf or coyote, in essence: No killing except to repel an attack, and otherwise, animal protection laws would generally apply. If you were merely threatened (growling, stalking) you would generally not be allowed to kill the animal. Doing so could be the subject of an arrest.
If the dog was a stray, the same rules would apply, but you might also be subject to a civil lawsuit for killing someone's property, i.e. the dog.
The Weasel
Pacific Tortuga
12-15-2006, 16:21
Edited due to deviation from stated intent of forum
Ummm, I think the shorter answer is, "I'm liable." That sucks. BTW and for what it's worth: when I'm surrounded by a pack of ugly, snarling dogs at a trailhead, the last thing I'm gonna worry about is the definition of "feral." :rolleyes:
But anyway, thanks for the answer. Looks like I'll have to keep swinging that stick and trying to get away without actually hitting one of the stupid mutts.
The Weasel
12-15-2006, 16:27
Edited due to deviation from stated intent of forum
The Weasel
12-15-2006, 16:30
Ummm, I think the shorter answer is, "I'm liable." That sucks. BTW and for what it's worth: when I'm surrounded by a pack of ugly, snarling dogs at a trailhead, the last thing I'm gonna worry about is the definition of "feral." :rolleyes:
But anyway, thanks for the answer. Looks like I'll have to keep swinging that stick and trying to get away without actually hitting one of the stupid mutts.
Leaving aside the fact that hitting one may not make it all that happy, you can use whatever force is necessary to protect yourself. But not more. You'd be surprised how many people say, "The dog was growling at me, so I shot it" and think that's a defense. It's not. "The dog was growling me and starting to approach me in a vicious manner," yeah, that starts to work. "The dog was growling and snapping and attempting to grab my leg." I'm pretty sure I can get you off on that one. "I shot that sumbitch while he was chewing on the jewels," is a no brainer.
The Weasel
The Weasel
Edited due to deviation from stated intent of forum
The Weasel
12-15-2006, 16:50
Edited due to deviation from stated intent of forum
This may be very simplistic, but it seems to me that if you conduct yourself by a few simple and general guidelines you can probably avoid a lot of problems. The things I am thinking of follow:
1. Don't carry weapons.
2. Don't carry or use illegal drugs.
3. Don't steal any goods or services.
4. Don't knowingly trespass.
5. Carry and produce identification if requested.
6. Comply with the reasonable requests of local authorities.
7. Don't get drunk and disorderly.
8. Don't vandalize anything.
9. Report any crimes you witness.
If a person conducts himself by the above guidelines don't you think he would be able to avoid most problems without giving away his civil liberties? Can you think of any other things I might have missed?
The Weasel
12-15-2006, 17:24
This may be very simplistic, but it seems to me that if you conduct yourself by a few simple and general guidelines you can probably avoid a lot of problems. The things I am thinking of follow:
1. Don't carry weapons.
2. Don't carry or use illegal drugs.
3. Don't steal any goods or services.
4. Don't knowingly trespass.
5. Carry and produce identification if requested.
6. Comply with the reasonable requests of local authorities.
7. Don't get drunk and disorderly.
8. Don't vandalize anything.
9. Report any crimes you witness.
If a person conducts himself by the above guidelines don't you think he would be able to avoid most problems without giving away his civil liberties? Can you think of any other things I might have missed?
Steve---
This is a REALLY good question, because (a) it's very intelligent, and (b) very wrong.
What you've said is a good way to avoid being convicted of violating laws, usually. But as the post from the guy with the hassle in Erwin (go find it) shows, that doesn't prevent you from being stopped: As I've said before, "There The Weasel is. Outside the limits (by 100 feet) of Mars Hill, NC. Off the shoulder. Clean, with no contraband. It's daylight, and I'm sober. My thumb is out but not where it shouldn't be. And the Chief of Police of Mars Hills stops me and tells me not to hitchhike or he'll arrest me." He's out of line, knows it, and doesn't really stop the hassle game until I let drop that I'm an attorney. But he's still got a badge, a gun, and it will be Monday - two days off - before a judge would let me go.
People need to know the "what ifs", as well as some other issues than those you mention.
But that's a really good list for how to get released on Monday morning. I mean it. Some of it is sort of basic: Obey the law and you don't have as many problems.
The Weasel
SGT Rock
12-15-2006, 17:32
Well as for a specific question, I don't have one I can think of this sec, but I do want to add that I got some PMs asking you sum some of these topics up later in an article that encompasses some of the general considerations that people may want to know or take into account when they hike. So eventually lets see that wrapped up into an article we can use in the article section.
As to the rest. Thanks for coming back and trying with a new start Weasel. To others I may have been down on lately, lets get a new start going and not keep going in the same circles.
The Weasel
12-15-2006, 17:36
Well as for a specific question, I don't have one I can think of this sec, but I do want to add that I got some PMs asking you sum some of these topics up later in an article that encompasses some of the general considerations that people may want to know or take into account when they hike. So eventually lets see that wrapped up into an article we can use in the article section.
As to the rest. Thanks for coming back and trying with a new start Weasel. To others I may have been down on lately, lets get a new start going and not keep going in the same circles.
Rock: I've asked this of the Administrators in PMs, but I think it got overlooked. Is there some way that I can download all the posts from the other threads so I can read them back and forth without having to scroll thrhough 800 posts that are sometimes irrelevant? There is a LOT of stuff that was q-and-a in those that I want to consolidate, but doing it one screen page at a time and making separate notes is really hard.
If anyone has suggestions on how to do this, I'd appreciate it.
My goal is to have that article submitted for comments next month, but if people have questions, monitor those too.
The Weasel
Steve---
This is a REALLY good question, because (a) it's very intelligent, and (b) very wrong.
What you've said is a good way to avoid being convicted of violating laws, usually. But as the post from the guy with the hassle in Erwin (go find it) shows, that doesn't prevent you from being stopped: As I've said before, "There The Weasel is. Outside the limits (by 100 feet) of Mars Hill, NC. Off the shoulder. Clean, with no contraband. It's daylight, and I'm sober. My thumb is out but not where it shouldn't be. And the Chief of Police of Mars Hills stops me and tells me not to hitchhike or he'll arrest me." He's out of line, knows it, and doesn't really stop the hassle game until I let drop that I'm an attorney. But he's still got a badge, a gun, and it will be Monday - two days off - before a judge would let me go.
People need to know the "what ifs", as well as some other issues than those you mention.
But that's a really good list for how to get released on Monday morning. I mean it. Some of it is sort of basic: Obey the law and you don't have as many problems.
The Weasel
What I would have done, and I may be a little more agreeable than most would be to tell him that I was sorry (even if I thought I was right). Then I would have walked back to the trail. I do mean that.
I doubt that he needs or wants a confrontation any more than I do.
I've been stopped several times for having lights out on my car. Each time, I honestly told the officer that I knew the light was out and promised to fix it the next day. I received a verbal warning, and each time I fixed the lamp the next day.
Again, I may be simplistic, but I think a reasonable attitude from me would result in a reasonable response from the officer.
The Weasel
12-15-2006, 18:08
What I would have done, and I may be a little more agreeable than most would be to tell him that I was sorry (even if I thought I was right). Then I would have walked back to the trail. I do mean that. I doubt that he needs or wants a confrontation any more than I do. *** Again, I may be simplistic, but I think a reasonable attitude from me would result in a reasonable response from the officer.
Steve, I'm that way too. But let me tell the tale more, in hopes you'll see that even us honest, good citizens get trouble, on the trail....
This guy was a bit full of himself, and trust me, I was polite; as an attorney and not totally stupid (500 miles from home with a man with a gun, I'm not argumentative), he gave me the choices: Get a cab, or walk. The cab would have been roughly $100 for the far; the town had no cabs, and one would have to come from Ashville. Walk? It was about 12 miles, uphill back to the trail. So I walked back to town, told a nice lady at the Visitor Center that this was a very trail-unfriendly attitude, and another visitor gave me a ride. But for 6 years I've told people to stay out of Mars Hill, an otherwise nice town. Why? Can't get out of it.
As for him, well, I'm from Detroit originally, and he had been (until a year or so before) a sargeant in a Detroit suburban department. But he was going to keep his town free of hiker trash, just like he would have in Livonia, Michigan. That I was clean, polite, and obviously a thru hiker, had nothing to do with it.
You're free to believe that you have nothing to fear from Mr. Police Officer, The Children's Friend, but I'm sorry. There is a lot that can happen, and it helps to know your rights. Maybe you'll never have your hiking partner break a leg, either. But first aid is useful to know.
The Weasel
SGT Rock
12-15-2006, 18:12
Weasel,
As far as I know there is only one way to get all those posts sorted out. BUT if I have some down time tomorrow or he next I can copy that thread over to another one and lock it down so there is no further posting. Then I can sort through the ones that are valid and ones that are not. Of course that would be from a non-expert viewpoint - so there is a possibility I could end up deleting something that isn't pertinent - I will try to delete sparingly. I can also do a hard delete so you don't have a string of 30 empty posts to look through.
Will that help?
The Weasel
12-15-2006, 18:23
Big time, Rock, use this rule of thumb: If you, as an informed layperson, don't see value in it, delete it. You won't be wrong enough to make a difference. When I do the article, it's going in as "proposed" for everyone to take hits at (gladly) so that the final will be useful.
The Weasel
max patch
12-15-2006, 18:31
Edited due to deviation from stated intent of forum
SGT Rock
12-15-2006, 18:32
OK then. I will put the base in the Articles section tonight and start the edits tomorrow. It is 0130 here and I need some sleep. Luckily there are no patrols tomorrow. If I get caught up on some of the reports and other crap I have to do with the Iraqis, then I can start doing some mass deleting on it some time tomorrow.
Steve, I'm that way too. But let me tell the tale more, in hopes you'll see that even us honest, good citizens get trouble, on the trail....
This guy was a bit full of himself, and trust me, I was polite; as an attorney and not totally stupid (500 miles from home with a man with a gun, I'm not argumentative), he gave me the choices: Get a cab, or walk. The cab would have been roughly $100 for the far; the town had no cabs, and one would have to come from Ashville. Walk? It was about 12 miles, uphill back to the trail. So I walked back to town, told a nice lady at the Visitor Center that this was a very trail-unfriendly attitude, and another visitor gave me a ride. But for 6 years I've told people to stay out of Mars Hill, an otherwise nice town. Why? Can't get out of it.
As for him, well, I'm from Detroit originally, and he had been (until a year or so before) a sargeant in a Detroit suburban department. But he was going to keep his town free of hiker trash, just like he would have in Livonia, Michigan. That I was clean, polite, and obviously a thru hiker, had nothing to do with it.
You're free to believe that you have nothing to fear from Mr. Police Officer, The Children's Friend, but I'm sorry. There is a lot that can happen, and it helps to know your rights. Maybe you'll never have your hiking partner break a leg, either. But first aid is useful to know.
The Weasel
I'm not in any way saying that knowledge is not necessary. And I fully realize that nice Mr. Police Officer and his brothers can beat the crap out of me or shoot me and my friends 50 times if he wants, and probably get away with it.
I think, (maybe you do too) that avoiding being clubbed or shot is more important than proving that I have some specific legal right in some town I will never visit again.
If some local PO "got off" on running me out of town and I didn't get hurt or fined, I'm OK with that. I would warn others, and might write a few letters, or post my story here.
You're always going to have a few jerks to deal with. Some have power and like to prove it.
Iv'e got one: What say a hiker stops by a shelter to eat lunch, drops his pack on the shelter floor, breaks out his snack and the "local" ( & proper for the area) constabulary stops by and finds contraband in or around the shelter but NOT in your pack or on your person? Hiker has done nothing wrong but what should they do / not do in such a situation?
Here's another one: What say a hiker has just hitched a short ride into town. Driver is pulled over shortly after said hiker & pack have been seated. Driver seems to have done something bad previously and is to be arrested on the spot. What should the hiker be prepared for knowing some jurisdictions can still seem "right out of the movies" as far as action/reaction?
The Weasel
12-15-2006, 18:57
Iv'e got one: What say a hiker stops by a shelter to eat lunch, drops his pack on the shelter floor, breaks out his snack and the "local" ( & proper for the area) constabulary stops by and finds contraband in or around the shelter but NOT in your pack or on your person? Hiker has done nothing wrong but what should they do / not do in such a situation?
Trac, I think Joe Hiker should keep a very important concept in mind from that point forward: Do not bend over to pick up the soap in the shower at the jail.
I think I've covered much of this elsewhere, but since all that is buried until I do the promised article, I'll say this, about your situation on its face: First, say nothing. Second, say nothing. If Joe is not the only person in the area, and everyone else dummies up, fine. If they finger him, say nothing. NOTHING. If arrested, say nothing other than "I want a lawyer." IN THOSE WORDS ONLY.If Joe's the only person there, he may get busted. He should say nothing. As for whether the junk is admissible in court against him, the answer is an almost certain "Yes." It's in plain view, and may be seized as evidence.
The Weasel
The Weasel
12-15-2006, 18:59
Here's another one: What say a hiker has just hitched a short ride into town. Driver is pulled over shortly after said hiker & pack have been seated. Driver seems to have done something bad previously and is to be arrested on the spot. What should the hiker be prepared for knowing some jurisdictions can still seem "right out of the movies" as far as action/reaction?
Be prepared for "protective" search of pack so that police can feel safe from weapons. Be prepared for possible arrest/hold as possible accomplice of bad guy. Be prepared to produce ID and respond to questions. Be prepared to refuse to answer anything that might self-incriminate. If unsure what that is, be prepared to lawyer up, i.e. "I WANT A LAWYER" (which must be stated in those precise words), over and over again, until questioning stops.
The Weasel
Thank you for the advice kind Weasel. One never knows, even when they hike by the rules. I bet you get a few more questions soon. t
If the dogs were really "feral" (i.e. totally wild, not mere strays) then local animal laws would apply the same as if the animal was, say, a wolf or coyote, in essence: No killing except to repel an attack, and otherwise, animal protection laws would generally apply. If you were merely threatened (growling, stalking) you would generally not be allowed to kill the animal. Doing so could be the subject of an arrest.
Is it not true there are exceptions in the law to this principal? For example, I am given to understand that one may kill a dog without a collar that is "running deer" in many places.
In the new spirit of this thread, I will offer no follow up on this. I have no special knowlege in this area. But I do wonder if there are other exeptions as well?
The Weasel
12-15-2006, 19:20
Thank you for the advice kind Weasel. One never knows, even when they hike by the rules. I bet you get a few more questions soon. t
Trac ---
I'm not shilling for business (this is not a profitable endeavor, financially), but the arrest/search thing is overblown, I think. But there are a lot of other topics that have been covered in full or part that are more "meat and potatos" for hikers, such as hitchhiking legally, whether certain knives and other implements are legal/illegal, serious littering, permitting issues, customs/immigration (for foreigners), health/insurance, theft, dogs (not the debate or attacks but licensing and anti-cruelty laws), and more.
Even knowing something you do has legal implications can be useful, even if you don't know the answer. It can make you realize things have that kind of implications. Example: If you know you can't hitch everywhere, you know there's a risk of hitching from the trail to a town you might have a hard time getting back from. So you might decide not to go to it. (Go to Gatlinburg as opposed to Cherokee, for instance).
The Weasel
BTW, Weasel, since you seemed to dwell on it... I see two definitions of "feral" --
1. existing in a natural state, as animals or plants; not domesticated or cultivated; wild.
2. having reverted to the wild state, as from domestication: a pack of feral dogs roaming the woods.
The one I was refering to was #2. Animals in Category #1 won't have owners (probably litigious, negligent, former owners) wanting to sue me. The animals in Category #2 would seem to be much more problematic, from a legal standpoint.
In state's that enforce hitch hiking laws:
Is it illegal to stand out of the travel lanes, but without sticking out your thumb in hopes someone will stop?
Is a sign listing your destination less illegal than physically attempting to thumb a ride?
What about simply walking towards town, but looking back at on coming cars in a way that signals interest in a ride without actually thumbing for a ride? The latter tends to be my technique. I find it usually works.
I guess these questions could be summed up more simply, i.e. what constitutes hitch hiking? Are their techniques that will generate free rides to towns without violating laws?
In state's that enforce hitch hiking laws:
Is it illegal to stand out of the travel lanes, but without sticking out your thumb in hopes someone will stop?
Is a sign listing your destination less illegal than physically attempting to thumb a ride?
What about simply walking towards town, but looking back at on coming cars in a way that signals interest in a ride without actually thumbing for a ride? The latter tends to be my technique. I find it usually works.
I guess these questions could be summed up more simply, i.e. what constitutes hitch hiking? Are their techniques that will generate free rides to towns without violating laws?
Interesting point, Weary. I often give obvious AT hikers a ride even though they are not openly soliciting with either a thumb or sign.
Is a "Trail Friend" who gives a hiker a ride in violation of any laws? If hitchhiking is illegal is the person who stops for a hitchhiker also committing an illegal act?
From the "Trail Friends" perspective is there a legal difference between offering a ride to an obvious hitchhike vs. offering a ride to a hiker who obviously needs transportation?
I do understand that there is a potential liability should I have an accident in which the hiker was injured.
The Weasel
12-17-2006, 14:24
In state's that enforce hitch hiking laws:
Is it illegal to stand out of the travel lanes, but without sticking out your thumb in hopes someone will stop?
Is a sign listing your destination less illegal than physically attempting to thumb a ride?
What about simply walking towards town, but looking back at on coming cars in a way that signals interest in a ride without actually thumbing for a ride? The latter tends to be my technique. I find it usually works.
I guess these questions could be summed up more simply, i.e. what constitutes hitch hiking? Are their techniques that will generate free rides to towns without violating laws?
This was pretty thoroughly covered in the earlier "Law for Backpacker 101" thread, which is closed but searchable, in a few posts (search "hitchhikiing") including referernce to a very detailed set of links about hitching in most states.
Almost universally, you may NOT solicit rides by standing in the roadway OR on the shoulder of a road. This will probably include bike lanes. It is also sometimes a violation to hike or walk on shoulders (limited access highways especially). "Soliciting" rides in the eyes of a zealous police officer may include more than sticking out a thumb, so be careful what else you do (such as signs) or anything else.
The Weasel
The Weasel
12-17-2006, 14:25
BTW, Weasel, since you seemed to dwell on it... I see two definitions of "feral" --
1. existing in a natural state, as animals or plants; not domesticated or cultivated; wild.
2. having reverted to the wild state, as from domestication: a pack of feral dogs roaming the woods.
The one I was refering to was #2. Animals in Category #1 won't have owners (probably litigious, negligent, former owners) wanting to sue me. The animals in Category #2 would seem to be much more problematic, from a legal standpoint.
You're correct, all the way.
The Weasel
SGT Rock
12-17-2006, 14:59
Here is one I thought of yesterday. It may seem stupid, but here goes.
In the Postal Service system they have Priority Mail which even provides the boxes for free if you use this service. They sit out in most post offices where you can pick them up to use them for mailing stuff at the post office right there on the counter most times. They are not intended for any other use and there are usually signs that say these boxes are for priority mail only - you are not supposed to turn them inside out or cover up the labels to use them in any other way because that is part of the deal the USPS makes - giving you the option of a free box for shipping priority.
That said, here is the question. A few months back a fellow was writing a bunch of suggestions on how to do easy mail drops and save money and all the other tidbits about mail drops. One of his suggestions was to get "free boxes" by taking a priority mail box and turning it inside out and using it to mail to yourself first class. At the time he was banged up by others that told him this was basically a form of theft.
So there you go. Based on your background, is this a form of theft?
Sleepy the Arab
12-17-2006, 15:45
The Post Office has gotten wise to this trick. "Priority Mail" is now printed on the inside of the free boxes.
The Weasel
12-17-2006, 18:32
Here is one I thought of yesterday. It may seem stupid, but here goes.
In the Postal Service system they have Priority Mail which even provides the boxes for free if you use this service. They sit out in most post offices where you can pick them up to use them for mailing stuff at the post office right there on the counter most times. They are not intended for any other use and there are usually signs that say these boxes are for priority mail only - you are not supposed to turn them inside out or cover up the labels to use them in any other way because that is part of the deal the USPS makes - giving you the option of a free box for shipping priority.
That said, here is the question. A few months back a fellow was writing a bunch of suggestions on how to do easy mail drops and save money and all the other tidbits about mail drops. One of his suggestions was to get "free boxes" by taking a priority mail box and turning it inside out and using it to mail to yourself first class. At the time he was banged up by others that told him this was basically a form of theft.
So there you go. Based on your background, is this a form of theft?
The Post Office has gotten wise to this trick. "Priority Mail" is now printed on the inside of the free boxes.
Anything offered for free without stated conditions at the time of offer is, I think, free to be used by the taker for any otherwise legal purpose. If the boxes are by a sign or notice saying "For Priority Mail Use Only" or words to that effect, they shouldn't be taken; otherwise, I don't see a problem.
That being said, any markings on the box that might suggest the box was "Priority Mail" when less postage was affixed would have to be totally erased, or technically the use would be "larceny by trick".
Once a box has been sent, it can be reused by the recipient consistent with postal requirements.
The Weasel
I think I vagely remember something about some kid who furnished his apartment with only priority mail boxes. He glued them together to make chairs and tables and other kinds of furnishings. He posted photos of this on some internet web site. The post office got wind and went after him. Sorry I don't remember the whole story or what they did to him. But it kind of relates.
Panzer
The Weasel
12-17-2006, 18:46
Law Regarding Packages Sent By Mail/Delivery Services.
This is a stub (beginning) of part of the Law article I will post soon. This deals with basic information about packages sent to addresses used for "mail drops".
Many hikers have supplies sent to them along the trail. These supplies are usually sent by one of two kinds of carriers: The United States Postal Service, owned by the US Government, and private services, such as FedEx and UPS. Mail drops are usually sent either to post offices (which can receive only US Mail) or private locations, such as outfitters and hostels.
Mail sent by US Mail is controlled by US law and regulations of the Postal Service that have the force of law, and violations of them carry serious penalties. The Postal Service has its own "police" ("Postal Inspectors") who have the power of arrest. This is important to know, since it is a federal crime to interfere with the proper delivery of the US Mail.
As a result, mail/packages sent to a hiker "General Delivery" at a US Post Office can usually ONLY be given to the named addressee, who must pick it up in person. However, the Postal Service keeps General Delivery mail for some time (usually 60 days) and unlike private services or hostels/outfitters, MUST return it if a valid return address is shown on the package. While hours are sometimes inflexible, the Post Office is essentially a "bank" for mail, and extremely careful to make sure that packages get to the right person and no one else. Return privileges can be important for "bounce boxes" and supply boxes that have things of value in them. Packages can also have "signature verification" and be insured. Insurance generally applies ONLY to the time a package is delivered to the address on the box, and insurance claims sometimes have limited periods of times to be filed. This can mean that delivery to a hostel/outfitter or other private address can result in difficulty with insurance claims, particularly if damage occurred AFTER the package arrived at the address, which postal insurance does not cover. The post office also has no liability for lost or stolen items from an address after delivery to that address.
Private services may have similar policies (although most do not have a "general delivery" function since most do not have offices to hold mail), but shippers can allow a package to be delivered without the named recipient's acceptance. They are similarly not liable for contents after delivery.
"Holders" of mail, such as hostels and outfitters, have little liability under Post Office regulations, once mail has been delivered to them "in care of", and have no obligation to keep a package safely or deliver it to the named person other than a general duty to behave in a reasonable manner. Such recipients often do not maintain a register of received packages, and for this reason, shippers for thru hikers would be wise to obtain "delivery confirmation" (very cheap) to be able to establish that a package was at least received by such a location, in the event of disagreement.
The Weasel
blindeye
12-17-2006, 19:03
Edited due to deviation from stated intent of forum
Jack Tarlin
12-17-2006, 19:18
Edited due to deviation from stated intent of forum
Edited due to deviation from stated intent of forum
Jack Tarlin
12-17-2006, 20:22
Edited due to deviation from stated intent of forum
Amigi'sLastStand
12-17-2006, 21:49
Edited due to deviation from stated intent of forum
Amigi'sLastStand
12-17-2006, 21:50
Edited due to deviation from stated intent of forum
[B]....As a result, mail/packages sent to a hiker "General Delivery" at a US Post Office can usually ONLY be given to the named addressee, who must pick it up in person.
My wife mailed 23 boxes of food and stuff to me in 1993. (My rule was to purchase or have a mailing, depending which was closest to the trail, a post office or a good store.) I don't recall any post office asking me for identification when I picked up my packages.
I found that most small town post offices closed at noon on Saturdays. On two or three occasions when I was running late I asked faster hikers to pick up my packages. (I was 64 and had a congenital heart condition that precluded rushing, especially on uphills. With my long legs I was a hiking wizard on the level and downhills.) They always did. No postal worker questioned their request for my packages.
I too have read the regulations. The Weasel is correct as far as the postal rules go. But in my experience, most postal workers in trail towns recognize the realities of the hiker community and act accordingly.
If you want to be sure, follow The Weasels advice. But iif you are running late, look for alternatives. There is a good chance they will work.
Weary
Again, I'm probably going to show my ignorance of the law. My impression of the AT is that as a National Scenic Trail, it and its corridor are essentially a linear National Park. Obviously the AT runs through various States, Counties and towns within those States.
When a crime of some type occurs on the trail, who investigate the crime? Who prosecutes the Crime?
Is it possible to commit the same infraction on the trail (within the corridor) and in the same town, but (off the corridor) and be faced with a different penalty and prosecution by a different authority in a different court?
The Weasel
12-18-2006, 11:34
Again, I'm probably going to show my ignorance of the law. My impression of the AT is that as a National Scenic Trail, it and its corridor are essentially a linear National Park. Obviously the AT runs through various States, Counties and towns within those States.
When a crime of some type occurs on the trail, who investigate the crime? Who prosecutes the Crime?
Is it possible to commit the same infraction on the trail (within the corridor) and in the same town, but (off the corridor) and be faced with a different penalty and prosecution by a different authority in a different court?
Steve -
Damn, I gotta get that article done, I know. Asked and answered, but here goes a shorty:
The AT isn't all "national", and criminal jurisdiction depends on where a crime occurred, and state authority is not limited in any part of it. Federal offenses (which sometimes overlap) may apply in federal lands, such as national forests and national parks.
Does this help?
The Weasel
The Weasel
12-18-2006, 14:39
My wife mailed 23 boxes of food and stuff to me in 1993. (My rule was to purchase or have a mailing, depending which was closest to the trail, a post office or a good store.) I don't recall any post office asking me for identification when I picked up my packages.
I found that most small town post offices closed at noon on Saturdays. On two or three occasions when I was running late I asked faster hikers to pick up my packages. (I was 64 and had a congenital heart condition that precluded rushing, especially on uphills. With my long legs I was a hiking wizard on the level and downhills.) They always did. No postal worker questioned their request for my packages.
I too have read the regulations. The Weasel is correct as far as the postal rules go. But in my experience, most postal workers in trail towns recognize the realities of the hiker community and act accordingly.
If you want to be sure, follow The Weasels advice. But iif you are running late, look for alternatives. There is a good chance they will work.
Weary
Weary is right about cooperative postal workers in trail post offices. The main point is that no one but the postal workers can go "behind the counter" to get the package. At hostels and outfitters, usually the boxes are in a big pile and you can take yours, or anyone else's, with no one noticing. The hostel and outfitter aren't responsible for that, generally, and the PO certainly isn't.
The Weasel
H2O_Buffalo
12-18-2006, 18:13
Weasel,
Thanks for doing this. I have been reading the "to toke or not to toke" thread elsewhere on WB.
I personally don't toke; never have and never will. Both my wife and I are licensed professional; I am engineer and she is a nurse. We could lose our licenses and therefore our means of financial support if convicted of MJ use (maybe even accused, not sure of the law here in NC). In New Mexico one can have a disciplinary tag put on your nursing license for a bad drug test and I think we all know that drug tests are not perfect. A psych nurse will in all likelihood lose his or her job for such.
Some of the posts in the "toking" thread lead me to believe that I WILL encounter other thru hikers smoking. If bad luck visits me and I am near them, they are busted (I can't imagine LEOs out on the trail just looking for tokers but you never know) and I get dragged into the situation, what are my options and what steps should I take.
Making a thru-hike is expensive. Losing my engineering license is ... worse. This is far scarier than sleeping in the dark in the woods in the cold miles from civilization.
skyhiker2
12-18-2006, 20:31
Question #1 Is hitch-hiking illeagal? Please be detailed in your answer..
Question #2 What would constitutes a leagal search to the bottom of my pack to find a little Pot? Assuming I'am just hiking alone like a normal thirty something guy who is well educated and owns a very successful general contracting company which no longer needs him to run. ( but with much success still cannot spell.)
Thanks,,,
Weasel,
Thanks for doing this. I have been reading the "to toke or not to toke" thread elsewhere on WB.
I personally don't toke; never have and never will. Both my wife and I are licensed professional; I am engineer and she is a nurse. We could lose our licenses and therefore our means of financial support if convicted of MJ use (maybe even accused, not sure of the law here in NC). In New Mexico one can have a disciplinary tag put on your nursing license for a bad drug test and I think we all know that drug tests are not perfect. A psych nurse will in all likelihood lose his or her job for such.
Some of the posts in the "toking" thread lead me to believe that I WILL encounter other thru hikers smoking. If bad luck visits me and I am near them, they are busted (I can't imagine LEOs out on the trail just looking for tokers but you never know) and I get dragged into the situation, what are my options and what steps should I take.
Making a thru-hike is expensive. Losing my engineering license is ... worse. This is far scarier than sleeping in the dark in the woods in the cold miles from civilization.
This is a very good question. Potentially the most valid such question I've seen asked regarding this topic.
I suspect if you don't go anywhere near anything you think is a risky situation and simply walk away from those engaging in such activities such a thing is as unlikely as in a football game parking lot or similiar situation. I'm guessing the Weasel will also suggest you cooperate as fully as possible with the LEO in question. Try to know as little as possible and you will likely not be in a position to betray any friendships.
Looking forward to the answer to this one!
The Weasel
12-19-2006, 03:24
Water ---
Some general suggestions, which should be pretty close generally:
1) You will, occasionally, be around marijuana smokers on the AT. Not often, but occasionally. You're not under any legal obligation to move away from them, and "guilt by association" is not gonna happen, mostly. (Don't worry. I'm being general.) It's rare for a "shelter bust" to happen, and I think things would have to be way, way out of line for that to occur. But if there was an appearance by John Law, I would provide ID, answer identification questions, and, IF I WAS CERTAIN MY PACK WAS CLEANallow it to be inspected. Keep in mind that when you leave your pack even for a few moments, you may not know what happens to it; many AT hikers (like me) NEVER leave their pack out of sight unless they have someone trustworthy (hiking partner etc) present. Sometimes things get "put" in packs by other hikers when they want to "protect" their stash. That's rare too, but be careful.
2) Other than that, I don't think you should have much problem. There is far, far, FAR less drug use on the trail than it may sound like from here, where "pot smoking" is a safe thread for people to get crazy on. Don't worry about it.
Hope this helps.
The Weasel
Weasel,
Thanks for doing this. I have been reading the "to toke or not to toke" thread elsewhere on WB.
I personally don't toke; never have and never will. Both my wife and I are licensed professional; I am engineer and she is a nurse. We could lose our licenses and therefore our means of financial support if convicted of MJ use (maybe even accused, not sure of the law here in NC). In New Mexico one can have a disciplinary tag put on your nursing license for a bad drug test and I think we all know that drug tests are not perfect. A psych nurse will in all likelihood lose his or her job for such.
Some of the posts in the "toking" thread lead me to believe that I WILL encounter other thru hikers smoking. If bad luck visits me and I am near them, they are busted (I can't imagine LEOs out on the trail just looking for tokers but you never know) and I get dragged into the situation, what are my options and what steps should I take.
Making a thru-hike is expensive. Losing my engineering license is ... worse. This is far scarier than sleeping in the dark in the woods in the cold miles from civilization.
The Weasel
12-19-2006, 03:26
Sky: Both topics have been handled with extensive detail in the "Law for Backpackers 101" thread (the original one) which I think is still findable (search for "Law" and "101". If you don't see them, let me know.
The Weasel
#1 Is hitch-hiking illeagal? Please be detailed in your answer..
Question #2 What would constitutes a leagal search to the bottom of my pack to find a little Pot? Assuming I'am just hiking alone like a normal thirty something guy who is well educated and owns a very successful general contracting company which no longer needs him to run. ( but with much success still cannot spell.)
Thanks,,,[/quote]
The Weasel
12-19-2006, 03:31
Weasel,
Thanks for doing this. I have been reading the "to toke or not to toke" thread elsewhere on WB.
I personally don't toke; never have and never will. Both my wife and I are licensed professional; I am engineer and she is a nurse. We could lose our licenses and therefore our means of financial support if convicted of MJ use (maybe even accused, not sure of the law here in NC). In New Mexico one can have a disciplinary tag put on your nursing license for a bad drug test and I think we all know that drug tests are not perfect. A psych nurse will in all likelihood lose his or her job for such.*** This is far
scarier than sleeping in the dark in the woods in the cold miles from civilization.
Water (and others)--
Thanks for this part of your post, also. I think its important, as a legal issue, for people on this forum to realize that references to drug use by others can be very dangerous to those people, even when nothing major is intended, and that using drugs on the trail, no matter how stupid some may think the laws can be, can have serious negative effects on others, and even keep people from hiking the AT.
This isn't a "legal" opinion in terms of answering a question, but I'll pose a question sort of like I think you are really asking, and answer it: Is illegal drug use, and any other illegal activity, sufficiently common that people who do not wish to be involved, or around, such activities should not hike the AT? Absolutely not. While there are occasional problems, they are infrequent, and should not hold anyone back from a long and enjoyable thru hike.
The Weasel
I believe you can ask an officer what your rights are in a particular situation and he may be required to tell you. Then you can say things like "While you don't have my permission to do such and such, I will cooperate with you...blah blah blah...." You want to give your lawyer every opportunity to get you off, and if the police do do stuff wrong, usually any evidence obtained thereby can't be used against you, so quietly resistant, but generally obedient and compliant is the way to go...right?
I believe you can ask an officer what your rights are in a particular situation and he may be required to tell you. Then you can say things like "While you don't have my permission to do such and such, I will cooperate with you...blah blah blah...." You want to give your lawyer every opportunity to get you off, and if the police do do stuff wrong, usually any evidence obtained thereby can't be used against you, so quietly resistant, but generally obedient and compliant is the way to go...right?
Criminal law in a really small nutshell (based on New York law):
Your inalienable rights come from the U.S. Constitution. Some state constitutions may offer the same or greater rights as well. The rights and warnings you are most concerned with in criminal matters stem from the 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case entitled Arizona v. Miranda. Those rights and warnings state that:
1. you have the right to remain silent (not to answer questions)
2. that anything you do say can and will be used against in in a court of law
3. You have a right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning
4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you at no cost (or on a sliding scale basis).
These Miranda warnings do not apply UNLESS you are in "custodial interrogation." In other words, if you are free to go/leave (and you may ask the LEO this), you are not considered "in custody." Therefore, anything you voluntarily tell the LEO that is not derived from custodial interrogation (but merely questioning) can result in being used against you. If you are in custody and being interrogated, and the LEO did not give you the Miranda warnings, then such statements cannot be used against you. (This needs to be determined at a pre-trial hearing). If you are asked to make a written statement, check the top of the statement form to see if the above Miranda warnings are typed on the first page. If they are, you have been "Mirandized" (the warnings do not have to be given to you verbally assuming you can read) and I suggest you go no further with the statement until you have consulted with an attorney who practices criminal law, as you may be waiving some of your rights. Use of such a form indicates that you are considered by LEOs as a possible perpetrator (e.g. suspect).
As to searches of your person or property, if you waive your rights and thereby consent to such a search, any illegal contraband (e.g. drugs, drug paraphernalia, weapons) is admissable in court. However, if a search is conducted without your consent and under questionable or unscrupulous tactics, then any contraband may be deemed "fruit of the poisonous tree" and cannot be used against you (assuming you or your attorney win this argument in a pre-trial motion/hearing). However, as The Weasel spelled out in the Backpacking Law 101 thread, patdown searches are generally allowed (and the fruit of such search admissable against you) if the LEO has good (e.g. valid) cause to believe that you may be armed with a weapon and she or others may be in imminent danger.
The Weasel, please feel free to add or modify as you see fit.
What would give the LEO good cause for a pat down since few long distance hikers carry fire arms? Can a pat down be considered questionable or unlawful?
Lone Wolf
12-19-2006, 11:53
Edited due to deviation from stated intent of forum
Edited due to deviation from stated intent of forum
Edited due to deviation from stated intent of forum
ahodlofski
12-19-2006, 13:10
I may be biased...but I'm a firm believer in having an attorney near at all times. On trail or off. We're just such fun.
What would give the LEO good cause for a pat down since few long distance hikers carry fire arms? Can a pat down be considered questionable or unlawful?
Sly, first off a LEO is not restricted to looking solely for firearms, but anything that can cause the LEO or others around harm, e.g. knives, tasers, mace, etc. Bear in mind that a LEO does not know whether you are a hiker or a fugitive from justice ("on the lam"), a hiker or a drug smuggler, a hiker or a poacher. In other words, the LEO does not know you nor does the LEO know your exact purpose or motive. Although it may be true that few long distance hikers carry firearms, the LEO does not know anything about you and whether you are part of the majority who don't carry firearms or part of the minority that do. So, the "good cause" is if the LEO has an articulable belief that he is at risk of imminent danger/harm from the person he is engaging.
Accordingly, some patdowns can be considered unlawful if the LEO is unable to convince or persuade a judge/justice/magistrate that he reasonably believed his life or others around him are in danger.
Usually the fruit of the search is what one would consider to be obtained through an unlawful search. This is known as the doctrine of "the fruit of the poisonous tree." For example, a LEO wants to pat you down for weapons. While doing so, he feels something soft in your pants pocket. He removes it and its a small bag of weed. One would generally consider such "fruit" to be the result of an unlawful search, as it is not reasonable to believe that some soft item is a weapon. However, one way or another you are not going to get your weed back and if you are subsequently arrested, the burden of proof is upon YOU to convince a judge/justice/magistrate during a pre-trial hearing that the search and resulting find was outside the scope of a weapon patdown.
The Weasel
12-19-2006, 15:13
Accordingly, some patdowns can be considered unlawful if the LEO is unable to convince or persuade a judge/justice/magistrate that he reasonably believed his life or others around him are in danger.
Outlaw has admirably stated the law; please understand that, as he says, your "rights" are ones that come from the US Constitution, so his statements are pretty accurate anywhere from Guam to Maine and Alaska to the Virgin Islands.
I do want to clarify two things: First, it is not necessary for a police officer to establish that she or he "reasonably believed his life or others IS in danger." He only need show that it is reasonable to believe that it MIGHT be, "under the totality of the circumstances." That's a case-by-case decision, and courts are NOT wild about criticising police officers who make what can be considered to be "good faith" decisions, since the alternative would be to have them take risks that could be life-threatening.
"Totality" will consider things such as the area someone is in (wild, possibly a hunting area where people might be armed, or near pot plantations, where "guards" carry handguns), appearance of the person and behavior (dishevelled, nervous), conduct (drunk or intoxicated?), and a number of other things. Any LEOs reading this can probably describe what they "feel" that leads them to a "patdown". But a search would have to be pretty off the wall for most judges to keep the evidence out of court, if it was a weapon.
As for "asking the police officer about your rights," please understand that police are allowed to lie. That can include things such as the effect of insisting on your rights and even some of your rights themselves. It is YOUR job to be aware of your rights - at least until you are a focus of an investigation such that you are "Mirandized" ("read your rights"), and that's the purpose of this thread...for people to have some idea of their rights in a variety of situations.
The Weasel
If a patdown occurs (ostensibly only to find weapons) and some object that can't be construed as a weapon, say a tiny container or some such, is detected, do they have a right to pull it out. I mean if the patdown is justified by the potential presence of a weapon, and ends up pulling out objects that could never have been a weapon, do they constitute poisonous fruit?
If a patdown occurs (ostensibly only to find weapons) and some object that can't be construed as a weapon, say a tiny container or some such, is detected, do they have a right to pull it out. I mean if the patdown is justified by the potential presence of a weapon, and ends up pulling out objects that could never have been a weapon, do they constitute poisonous fruit?
See last paragraph of post #69 above. Using my example in #69, my short answer is yes, in my opinion the item would be deemed inadmissable against you at a trial (assuming it is contraband). The rub is you're not going to get it back because it is contraband and unlawful for you to possess in the first place.
Does that mean you cannot be prosecuted for possession of the contraband assuming it cannot be used as evidence against you? Well there is no bright line rule on that question. For example, the LEO gets the baggy of weed. The search was deemed unlawful and the evidence cannot be used against you at a trial. Okay, but the LEO also noted that your eyes were glassy, your clothes and hair smelled of weed, in all respects you displayed all the signs of using illicit drugs. Now it would be the prosecutor's call whether she wants to go forward with a prosecution, all the while knowing that she cannot use the bag of weed taken from your pocket.
Now it is your word against a LEO and the LEO conducted an illegal search. If that is all they have, dollars to donuts she will either drop the charges or offer you some reduced violation, e.g. disorderly conduct and waive any fines or give you something like an "ACOD" which stands for Adjournment in Contemplation Of Dismissal, which means if you stay out of trouble for a period of time (generally 6 mos.) then the charges go away and your record is sealed.
The Weasel
12-19-2006, 17:43
If a patdown occurs (ostensibly only to find weapons) and some object that can't be construed as a weapon, say a tiny container or some such, is detected, do they have a right to pull it out. I mean if the patdown is justified by the potential presence of a weapon, and ends up pulling out objects that could never have been a weapon, do they constitute poisonous fruit?
Yes, probably. But the effect of that is (1) it will still be confiscated as contraband if it's something illegal, (2) it can't be used as evidence in any case against you, but that doesn't mean that you "get off" of anything, and (3) at most, you have a lawsuit against the LEO for an illegal search, but those are difficult to win and take a huge amount of effort.
The Weasel
With all due respect to legal theory, have any criminal lawyers participating in this thread ever known a law enforcement officer to lie with regard to whether or not he was given permission to conduct a search?
Or perhaps simply remember the facts differently from the person he was arresting?
The Weasel
12-19-2006, 20:42
With all due respect to legal theory, have any criminal lawyers participating in this thread ever known a law enforcement officer to lie with regard to whether or not he was given permission to conduct a search?
Or perhaps simply remember the facts differently from the person he was arresting?
I am personally aware of at least one case (I'll not get into details) in which there is no doubt in my mind that a law enforcement officer made a false statement of fact to a man whose home he wished to gain entry to in order to look for illegal items, and who accomplished that, found illegal items, and successfully prosecuted the man.
In other contexts, including interrogations, it's hardly uncommon.
The Weasel
blindeye
12-19-2006, 21:43
Edited due to deviation from stated intent of forum
With all due respect to legal theory, have any criminal lawyers participating in this thread ever known a law enforcement officer to lie with regard to whether or not he was given permission to conduct a search?
Or perhaps simply remember the facts differently from the person he was arresting?
Rick, Unfortunately, this is not "legal theory" but legal reality. It happens more often than one would ever imagine. As someone wrote in an earlier post, LEOs are not always "your friend." Some (read: not all) LEOs are driven by a thirst for power, others may be seeking quick promotions, while others because of the way they were trained and some because they have become jaded by their experiences "on the job."
I'm not saying all LEOs are bad people (in my experience some are, but most are not) they are, however, goal oriented just like people in the private sector. Some may push the envelope, yet most do so without violating the law or one's constitutional rights. And yes, I am talking from first-hand experience.
It happened to me. My lawyer caught him lyin on cross but I was still found guilty. Lucky I paid for the court reporter cus I appealed and got off. It was the young guy who lied. The older cop (who came later) was the one who did things right. More experience and perspective I guess. More brains, too. I only wish he'd arrived sooner, then he could have been my witness against the young liar. No reprimands from the judge or anything. Anyone know if that goes on his "permanent record"?
Edited due to deviation from stated intent of forum
Edited due to deviation from stated intent of forum
Edited due to deviation from stated intent of forum
The Weasel
12-20-2006, 16:01
It happened to me. My lawyer caught him lyin on cross but I was still found guilty. Lucky I paid for the court reporter cus I appealed and got off. It was the young guy who lied. The older cop (who came later) was the one who did things right. More experience and perspective I guess. More brains, too. I only wish he'd arrived sooner, then he could have been my witness against the young liar. No reprimands from the judge or anything. Anyone know if that goes on his "permanent record"?
B, I understand, and Outlaw's slightly incomplete. Virtually all police professionals do their job properly. But lying sometimes is part of doing a professional job. NOT on a witness stand, and NOT in an affidavit filed with a judge...those are perjury, because they're under oath. But it is not only permitted, but sometimes necessary from the law enforcement perspective to lie to a person. Example: Two people are being interrogated separately about which pulled the trigger. Each is told "Your buddy says you're the triggerman" although neither one said any such thing. The purpose is to get one to say, "Oh yeah? Well the gun is in his trunk and has his fingerprints on it" or for one to say, "Oh, damn, yeah, you got me."
So when a cop tells you something, maybe she knows what she's talking about, and maybe she doesn't. Or maybe she has another purpose.
The Weasel
So if asked a direct question outside of being under oath, like "Before I answer your questions, officer, what are my rights in this situation?" they are not required to answer truthfully?
The Weasel
12-20-2006, 20:01
They're not required to answer any question, other than their badge number. That one has to be truthful (or name or other identifier), but beyond that, no, they're not really required to. That's what I've been trying to do in these threads: Give people some basic sense of what their rights are in a lot of situations, so they don't have to take chances like that. I'm really glad that more lawyers are responding too, as well as other LEOs. Better to know NOW, than to take chances LATER.
The Weasel
saimyoji
12-21-2006, 00:10
Editme due to deviation from stated intent of forum
Ramble~On
12-21-2006, 05:59
Law For Backpackers :
"Hike Your Own Hike":sun
Law For Backpackers :
"Hike Your Own Hike":sun
Spirit, that's a wonderful creed to live/hike by, but it won't protect in the event you have a run-in with a LEO. That is why The Weasel began this thread; so that people can HYOH, but armed with a basic understanding of what their legal rights are so they can avoid problems that will prevent them from hiking their own hike. Having one's head in the sand or claiming ingorance of the law are not valid defenses in civil or criminal cases.
Spirit, that's a wonderful creed to live/hike by, but it won't protect in the event you have a run-in with a LEO. That is why The Weasel began this thread; so that people can HYOH, but armed with a basic understanding of what their legal rights are so they can avoid problems that will prevent them from hiking their own hike. Having one's head in the sand or claiming ingorance of the law are not valid defenses in civil or criminal cases.
Outlaw, Ok, I know my rights, get dragged downtown by LEO, get questioned, detained and secure legal representation, make the necessary court appearances and win.
I WON!!! I'm a smart guy, I'm right, I'm not fined or imprisoned, life is good. But, the hike I planned for years is ruined by the whole experience.
From a lawyer/hiker point of view what is your best advice on how to avoid all these problems? I posted some ideas early in this thread.
I personally would rather avoid a problem if possible. You can be totally right (legally) but have your life ruined proving it.
max patch
12-21-2006, 11:44
Don't break the law and you won't have any problems.
Don't break the law and you won't have any problems.
Oh, if life were that simple.... we wouldn't be having this thread.
Don't break the law and you won't have any problems.
That's not necessairly true You could always be charged for something you didn't do or look like another that did.
Don't break the law and you won't have any problems.
Well, Max, that is a bit of an oversimplification. What I mean is sometimes we are just at the wrong place at the wrong time. For example, someone gives you a free ride back from town to the trail. (you were not hitchhiking). The vehicle has a broken taillight. A LEO has legal basis for pulling over said vehicle. While talking to the driver, he observes a handgun protruding from under the front seat. Under most states, each and every person in that vehicle now has a weapon possession problem, not just the driver.
Steve, I don't have any simple answers for you other than perhaps some common sense approaches to protect yourself, e.g. know the person/people you are with, if they may be the type to be carrying contraband (weapons, illegal drugs, etc.) or you know for a fact that they are carrying contraband, then it probably would be in your own best interest to distance yourself from them. Also, as The Weasel has pointed out previously, don't ever leave your pack unattended or with someone you do not trust. It is way to simple to slip some contraband in a pack without someone knowing it when they go to the privy, into a shop, during a swim, etc.
IMHO your own good common sense and perhaps coupled with a gut feeling about a person or a situation are your best defenses from getting caught up in a bad situation. Give the situation you are facing a quick sniff test-- if it smells bad and it just doesn't look right, then it probably is bad! Get far away and distance yourself as quickly as possible.
Sorry I can't be more concrete on this. Sometimes bad things just happen to good people-- often at no fault of the individual.
Don't break the law and you won't have any problems.
That assumes LEOs are infallible. They aren't. I've never been convicted for things I did. I have a couple of times for things I didn't do -- or more accurately -- didn't do in ways the LEO testified to in court.
Weary
Some people are afraid of bears on the AT.
Others are afraid of killers on the AT.
Still more are afraid of getting arrested and having thier rights violated on the AT
Its the way we were brought up.
To be afraid.
People have all kinds of fears, (snakes, spiders, bears, etc.) whether valid or otherwise. But to have a fear of being arrested or having their rights violated on the AT IMHO is rather excessive. I don't have any statistics to back this up, but I would submit that probably 99.95% of the people who have either day, sectioned or thru hiked the AT (or any other trail for that matter) have not had a single run in or problem with a LEO.
Last summer when I did the Northville-Placid Trail, I met a NYS Ranger. He is a LEO under NY statutory law. He carried a handgun, but left it in his backpack. My son and I learned a lot of really good stuff from our few hours with this gentleman. He never looked upon us as possible perps or treated us with anything but respect, even though we hadn't showered in 5 days and looked a little rough around the edges.
As FDR once said, "we have nothing to fear but fear itself." People just need to keep their fears in check, but also be realistic about the different scenarios they are in (e.g. see my in above post about accepting rides).
The Weasel
12-22-2006, 10:40
Much of the focus lately is on searches, which is not really the key about this thread. "Not breaking the law" doesn't tell people what they need to know about a lot of things that involve "laws". Criminal law issues are rare (although the reason I started this). I think we've explained "search and seizure" issues pretty thoroughly, and with a little patience, in the next couple of weeks I'll have a consolidated article up that hopefully covers all the topics raised so far. Are there new issues?
The Weasel
Much of the focus lately is on searches, which is not really the key about this thread. "Not breaking the law" doesn't tell people what they need to know about a lot of things that involve "laws". Criminal law issues are rare (although the reason I started this). I think we've explained "search and seizure" issues pretty thoroughly, and with a little patience, in the next couple of weeks I'll have a consolidated article up that hopefully covers all the topics raised so far. Are there new issues?
The Weasel
This may be new. A few years ago I was day hiking in the winter and met a NYDEC ranger along the the trail (same type of officer mentioned by Outlaw). My conversation with him was basically: good morning, nice day, etc.
He did however comment about my clothing, I was wearing blue jeans and a cotton flannel shirt along with my winter coat, hat and gloves. He told me that I should be wearing proper winter clothing and that he could, if he chose to do so, order me to leave the trail (based on his belief that I was not properly dressed for winter hiking). As it was he wished me a nice day, and told me to consider buying some proper winter gear. I guess you could call it a verbal warning.
Could he really have legally ordered me to leave the trail? If so, and I refused, what would I have been charged with?
Maybe some of this has been covered, but let's assume that you are arrested, what's best to do then? I've always heard that what you should do is SHUT UP and not talk to the cops until after you've spoken to an attorney, but after that? How does one obtain an attorney if you're not from the town where you're busted? Is it true that everyone gets one phone call? Would it be best to call a family member and then ask them to find a lawyer? Can you bail yourself out if you're carrying, say, only an ATM and credit card? Are there other things we should know for after we've been busted? I guess a lot would depend on the charge, but assuming it's for something relatively minor -- possession, public intoxication, etc.
The Weasel
12-22-2006, 12:14
Steve: Increasingly, state and national parks are coming up with regulations that require people to be safely equipped for the activity they are engaging in. I can't speak to your situation, but that's very possible, and you might want to check with the park office when you go somewhere for their rules (a good idea in any event) if they aren't on line.
If there are rules that cover such things, refusing to obey a lawful order of a ranger may be a criminal offense (probably a misdemeanor).
The Wesael
This may be new. A few years ago I was day hiking in the winter and met a NYDEC ranger along the the trail (same type of officer mentioned by Outlaw). My conversation with him was basically: good morning, nice day, etc.
He did however comment about my clothing, I was wearing blue jeans and a cotton flannel shirt along with my winter coat, hat and gloves. He told me that I should be wearing proper winter clothing and that he could, if he chose to do so, order me to leave the trail (based on his belief that I was not properly dressed for winter hiking). As it was he wished me a nice day, and told me to consider buying some proper winter gear. I guess you could call it a verbal warning.
Could he really have legally ordered me to leave the trail? If so, and I refused, what would I have been charged with?
The Weasel
12-22-2006, 12:20
Maybe some of this has been covered, but let's assume that you are arrested, what's best to do then? I've always heard that what you should do is SHUT UP and not talk to the cops until after you've spoken to an attorney, but after that? How does one obtain an attorney if you're not from the town where you're busted? Is it true that everyone gets one phone call? Would it be best to call a family member and then ask them to find a lawyer? Can you bail yourself out if you're carrying, say, only an ATM and credit card? Are there other things we should know for after we've been busted? I guess a lot would depend on the charge, but assuming it's for something relatively minor -- possession, public intoxication, etc.
John:
The advice is good. You simply say, "I want a lawyer." Sometimes police will try to say other things, such as "are your sure" or whatever. Say ONLY "I want a lawyer." Do not say anything more in response to questions (or make any statement) until you see a lawyer. If you don't know anyone, you'll be given a hearing in a day or two before a judge at which one will be appointed for you (if indigent) or an opportunity for you to contact one.
This is a good question, and I'll try to go into more about it later.
For others who read this post, this is a pretty important topic. PLEASE, if you're not an attorney (thanks, Outlaw!) or involved significantly in law enforcement (or have some kind of good training), please don't pass out advice. And please, let's not turn this into a set of war stories. Dixi seems to be lightening up on editing posts, hoping we've all learned our lessons. But this IS a "question and answer" forum.
Thanks...and I'll post more on this, and hope Outlaw and others like her/him will too.
The Weasel
He told me that I should be wearing proper winter clothing and that he could, if he chose to do so, order me to leave the trail (based on his belief that I was not properly dressed for winter hiking). Could he really have legally ordered me to leave the trail? If so, and I refused, what would I have been charged with?
Steve, I will assume that you were on public lands when you met up with the ranger. His role, much like that of the rangers at the base of Mt. K is to prevent people from getting into potentially dangerous situations which then require others to risk their lives to make a rescue. He must of evaluated that, other than your clothing, you displayed a knowledge of the wilderness, and of course, he took into consideration both current and pending weather conditions.
To answer your question, NYS Rangers are deemed Peace Officers (see NY Penal Law) but the Environmental Conservation Law grants rangers much of the same powers as Environmental Conservation Officers, who are actually police officers under NY law. That being said, if in the ranger's judgment you posed a risk to your own safety, he is authorized to: (1) order you to retreat from the trail, (2) if you refuse, he can give you an appearance ticket (summons) to appear before a local judge for failing to obey his order, and (3) if you become beligerent, he can arrest you for disorderly conduct (see NY Penal Law Sect. 240.20) which is a violation or Aggravated Dis. Con. (Penal Law Sect. 240.21) which is a Class A misdemeanor (punishable by fine and/or up to one year incarceration).
IMHO most NYS rangers are just real good, down-to-earth people. The many that I have spoken with do not seem to relish the peace officer status bestowed upon them... it just sort of came with the job. Those that are more gung-ho, generally go into the ENCON officers side, which is nearly 100% law enforcement.
I don't want to jump the gun on your response, but if you read this before you write it up, your initial response begs what seems to be an important question. I've highlighted certain words for emphasis:
"John:
The advice is good. You simply say, "I want a lawyer." Sometimes police will try to say other things, such as "are your sure" or whatever. Say ONLY "I want a lawyer." Do not say anything more in response to questions (or make any statement) until you see a lawyer. If you don't know anyone, you'll be given a hearing in a day or two before a judge at which one will be appointed for you (if indigent) or an opportunity for you to contact one.
This is a good question, and I'll try to go into more about it later.
The Weasel"
I read an essay written by a locally famous attorney, Gatewood Galbraith, in which he said that he spends the majority of his time trying to control/mitigate the damage done by his clients who talked to the police before talking to him. His best advice was, again, to SHUT UP.
No one wants to sit in jail for a couple of hours, much less a day or two, but can the police hold you for that long without the chance to appear before a judge and be given a bail amount?
"An opportunity to contact a lawyer." I hired an attorney to draft my will and look over a property contract, but other than that, I've no clue how to find a great criminal lawyer (after all, who wants just a so-so lawyer when jail is a possibility?) Would you advise at least carrying the names and phone numbers of criminal attorneys just in case?
Finally, I live in Lexington, KY. If I am arrested/jailed in, say, Tennessee, wouldn't I need an attorney from the town in which I'm incarcerated? Or at least one who has passed the TN bar?
Thanks in advance for any info.
The Weasel
12-22-2006, 14:48
I don't want to jump the gun on your response, but if you read this before you write it up, your initial response begs what seems to be an important question. I've highlighted certain words for emphasis:
"John:
The advice is good. You simply say, "I want a lawyer." Sometimes police will try to say other things, such as "are your sure" or whatever. Say ONLY "I want a lawyer." Do not say anything more in response to questions (or make any statement) until you see a lawyer. If you don't know anyone, you'll be given a hearing in a day or two before a judge at which one will be appointed for you (if indigent) or an opportunity for you to contact one.
This is a good question, and I'll try to go into more about it later.
The Weasel"
I read an essay written by a locally famous attorney, Gatewood Galbraith, in which he said that he spends the majority of his time trying to control/mitigate the damage done by his clients who talked to the police before talking to him. His best advice was, again, to SHUT UP.
No one wants to sit in jail for a couple of hours, much less a day or two, but can the police hold you for that long without the chance to appear before a judge and be given a bail amount?
"An opportunity to contact a lawyer." I hired an attorney to draft my will and look over a property contract, but other than that, I've no clue how to find a great criminal lawyer (after all, who wants just a so-so lawyer when jail is a possibility?) Would you advise at least carrying the names and phone numbers of criminal attorneys just in case?
Finally, I live in Lexington, KY. If I am arrested/jailed in, say, Tennessee, wouldn't I need an attorney from the town in which I'm incarcerated? Or at least one who has passed the TN bar?
Thanks in advance for any info.
OK, I'll take a break from the paying work (want an address to send money to?) and swing at this...
First, upon arrest, an accused is entitled to be brought before a judge or magistrate within a reasonable time. Usually, that's 24 hours, but in rural areas, and around weekends or holidays, it may be longer. It generally isn't longer than 48 hours. So yes, you're on hold that long. It's not pretty, but it's true.
Second, yeah, the advice is, dummy up. Keep in mind that this includes to anyone. The prisons are full of people who "lawyered up" and who talked to that other poor guy in the cell too. And who got out earlier, somehow...shortly after his conversation about you with the police. So you don't say nothing to nobody. Your name, maybe. Maybe what you like about Tennessee. Nothing more. NOTHING.
Third, if that lawyer who did the will was a good lawyer, you ask him to refer a good criminal lawyer. He/she will know how to find one. Or, in your call (if not released on recognizance or bail) you ask others in that area who is a good lawyer in such situations.
Last, you don't need a great lawyer for a minor charge, but yes, she/he has to be admitted one way or another in the state you're arrested in. If you're up for a huge crime (murder, etc) and you have the money for a great lawyer from another state, she/he will know what to do. Don't worry about that.
Lastly, the risk of arrest is so infinitesimally small, as Outlaw says, you don't need to worry about it unless you're packing enough druges to get you busted for distribution. If you do get arrested, just be silent until you get a lawyer and then worry about getting the right one.
The Weasel
Is it true that everyone gets one phone call? YES. No constitutional right to a phone call, but, except in rare circumstances, you cannot be held incommunicado. Would it be best to call a family member and then ask them to find a lawyer? Either, but a family member could not only obtain a lawyer for you (what if yours is on vacation?) but can also bring money if needed for bail or bond. Can you bail yourself out if you're carrying, say, only an ATM and credit card? That is up to each state's law and/or local custom. Generally, the only bail acceptable is cash. A LEO probably won't be able to bring you to an ATM to withdraw the bail funds (possibly due to a risk of escape). Are there other things we should know for after we've been busted? Pretty well covered by The Weasel, e.g. don't talk to anyone (a/k/a jailhouse snitches). I guess a lot would depend on the charge, but assuming it's for something relatively minor -- possession, public intoxication, etc. Well, the type and degree of the crime will determine whether bail or bond is set or if you will be released in your own recognizance (ROR'd). It will also determine the steps the judicial system must take, e.g. minor offense-- no grand jury will hear the case, felony-- felony hearings, grand jury action, etc.
My answers are in Bold print.
Question:
Of the participants in this thread, who (if any) are criminal attorneys?
The Weasel
12-22-2006, 21:19
Question:
Of the participants in this thread, who (if any) are criminal attorneys?
I have a general practice, but it is primarily litigation driven. I have done criminal work since 1973 as retained, court-appointed and pro bono counsel.
The Weasel
Question:
Of the participants in this thread, who (if any) are criminal attorneys?
I'm was formerly with a county District Attorney's office and also State Attorney General's Criminal Prosecutions Bureau. Currently I do vehicle & traffic prosecution and local law violations; also do some defense work in a side practice.
Wanderingson
12-23-2006, 07:57
Question:
Of the participants in this thread, who (if any) are criminal attorneys?
Oh I may not be a criminal attorney, but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night.:banana
TIDE-HSV
12-23-2006, 15:03
When I started hiking the Smokies extensively in the winter, around 35 years ago, very thorough gear checks were required. We had to check in at the Sugarlands and spread all our gear out on the floor. There was one guy who a real bastard, quibbling about every item and turning people back for the fun of it. In the late '70s, a group of us drove up to hike up Mt. Sterling in January - turned out to be about 2' of snow on top and I saw my stove disappear, insulating pad and all down a 2' deep hole in the snow. But that's another story. Anyway, we spread all of our gear out and the jerk walked over and said "Looks good to me," turned on his heel and walked away, to our astonishment. Come to find out that some guy had won a suit (to risk his life at will) against the NPS, not in the Smokies, but out west, and the NPS decided to no longer require intensive gear checks, rather than appeal the decision. Now the jerk knew this, but he didn't stop us from stripping our packs while he watched...
The Weasel
12-23-2006, 15:40
Let's stay on topic, friends: Questions, answers, and specific comments about each. War stories are great...but they can lead us astray. Thanks.
The Weasel
[quote=The Weasel;291169]Let's stay on topic, friends: Questions, answers, and specific comments about each. War stories are great...but they can lead us astray./quote]
Sorry, Weasel. TIDE's story was one of the most interesting I've read in a while. And it did relate to "dealing with the authorities." You coulda picked a better dog for that fight. ;)
TIDE-HSV
12-23-2006, 23:37
I aimed it at the "regulatory" issue. I was surprised to hear that they might be trying to get back into the micro-managing posture. I haven't researched it in a long time, but it shouldn't be hard to uncover...
I aimed it at the "regulatory" issue. I was surprised to hear that they might be trying to get back into the micro-managing posture. I haven't researched it in a long time, but it shouldn't be hard to uncover...Thanks for your posts. I believe this subject had been asked about on another thread in relation to Baxter State Park winter rules. Thanks for the first hand account of your "gear check". Anyone aware of any GSMNP gear checks recently? Other than Baxter, are there any other areas on the AT where you must meet gear requirements in order to continue?
When someone needlessly asks for an ID to buy cigarettes or alcohol when it's clear you're of age, are they being a "jerk" or doing what's required to keep their job and/or obey the law?
They're probably just doing what their boss told them to do. Aren't they allowed to set their own rules stricter than legal if they please?
dixicritter
12-24-2006, 09:25
Y'all have been asked to keep it on topic. Please remember this is the Straight Forward forum. Edits will continue from this point forward.
The management
The Weasel
12-24-2006, 18:28
[quote=The Weasel;291169]Let's stay on topic, friends: Questions, answers, and specific comments about each. War stories are great...but they can lead us astray./quote]
Sorry, Weasel. TIDE's story was one of the most interesting I've read in a while. And it did relate to "dealing with the authorities." You coulda picked a better dog for that fight. ;)
No fight is being picked, and I don't think I was either impolite or out of line. It's a great story, and I'm sure there's a place (such as the thread about the guy who got harassed in Erwin) that is a great place for stories like that. But I really hope that this continues to be a Q-and-A thread.
Question about where there are gear checks required is a good one, and if anyone is aware of where they are required by local rules, it would be very useful. I'm not aware of any outside of what's mentioned above.
The Weasel
The Weasel
12-24-2006, 18:29
They're probably just doing what their boss told them to do. Aren't they allowed to set their own rules stricter than legal if they please?
In light of the severe penalties (such as loss of license), they are perfectly entitled to ask anyone for ID.
Hatfield
01-22-2010, 13:21
If a cop asks to search your bag, you can refuse, correct
Jack Tarlin
01-22-2010, 17:23
Yeah, and if he has probable cause that a crime has been committed, he can search it anyway, or find an excuse to bring you in.
While it doesn't seem fair, if you have nothing to hide, you're sometimes better off letting him search it, unless you want to be bothered/harassed further.
Problem is, even if you DO have nothing to hide, telling an officer "No!" is sometimes considered a red flag, i.e., it may well encourage him to find a way to search you and your stuff anyway.
But yeah, you can certainly refuse such a request, but I'd be careful about doing so.
WalkingStick75
01-22-2010, 17:53
If a cop asks to search your bag, you can refuse, correct
I think you need to give a few details if you want a credible response. Based on this question I take it a cop walks up to you and asks to search your bag. I would first ask him why and unless he had a dammed good reason tell him NO.
If you have nothing to hide it should not be a problem. However, police always have the exigent circumstances exception to perform a search which may come to play if you are talking about a backpakcker, may not in other situations.
Last thing to consider. Always best to be honest, if you are caught you are caught pissing off the cop will only make it harder on you. I am retired now but I have given a lot of breaks to those that did not give me a hard time.
The law in Maine makes it an offense to lie to a law enforcement officer. I know because my son told a fib at age 16, and I had to either hire him a lawyer or pay the $50 fine. Anyone who disagrees with my decision should query Weasel, or, maybe, hire their own lawyer -- especially, if you can find one that charges less than $50 to defend a "lying to an officer" arrest.
There are a lot of good reasons to refuse to allow a search...even if you "have nothing to hide."
When police conduct searches, they aren't really all that concerned about whether or not they are making a mess out of your stuff, or even destroying it. This is a simple and practical reason you can give the officer for refusing to allow him/her to search. "Sorry, sir, but if I allow you to search my pack you'll mess up all my stuff and I'll have to repack it...and I have a lot of expensive gear in there...I just can't take the chance that you'd damage any of it." They will then probably tell you they promise not to make a mess and won't damage your stuff, or will pay for it if they do. Just say "sorry sir, I don't know you and I don't trust you to do that. I've seen the way police conduct searches on that show COPS and I just can't allow it." Gives them a logical reason for not allowing a search that doesn't make you look guilty or like you have something to hide.
These two videos illustrate why you should never talk to the police...this is a recording of a two part lecture given to law students...the first part is given by a defense attorney, the second part is given by a police detective:
Defense Attorney:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
Police Detective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
JustaTouron
01-23-2010, 11:09
One thing people need to keep in mind, while searches are often referred to as a "legal" search vs an "illegal" search it means something different than what you might think of when comparing "legal" drugs vs "illegal" drugs.
A legal search requires either probable cause (or reasonable suspicion for minor searches.) It also requires a warrant or a warrant exception but there are some many exceptions one or more of which will almost be available so forget the warrant requirement.
If a cop conducts and illegal search (doesn't have probable cause), he isn't going to go to jail, he isn't gonna get a fine, he isn't going to have to pay for anything he breaks in your pack unless you can prove in court that the his search was truly outrageous (and court costs will be way more than the cost of your gear so he doesn't have to worry about that), you won't be able to sue him for a wrongful search unless it was unbelievably out of this world outrageous (like he was searching every single black person, but none of the whites and it was being done for sport not law enforcement), and he isn't going lose his job or even get yelled at when you complain to the chief of police. Here is what happens if he conducts an illegal search......the state can't use any evidence found during the illegal search against you when you get charged with a crime. (that is all)
BTW the evidence can be used against someone else. If a cop illegally searches your backpack and finds pot, the evidence is admissible against your hiking partner. And the the illegal search of his backpack can be used against you.
A cop doesn't need probable cause to search your bag if he has your permission.
IMHO, if you are carrying something illegal such as pot, booze (under 21) etc. and the cop asks for permission to search your bag, refuse. The cop is still going to search your bag, there is a very small chance that the cop won't be able to meet the incredibly low standard of probable cause and your atty will get the evidence suppressed.
OTOH, I don't carry any illicit drugs etc with me, so here is what I would do if a cop asked to search my back. 1. I am going to tell him what weapons I have if he hasn't already asked (pocket knife + bear spray) and where they are located. 2. I am going to tell him I have carefully packed everything carefully and that my stove is fragile and I don't want my sleeping bag getting wet so I would appreciate it if we could lay out my ground sheet first and put the stuff on that. 3. I am going to say I have nothing to hide, so okay. Hopefully because I have been super polite and cooperative he will either decide not to conduct the search or at the very least he will be gentle with my stuff. B/C the bottom line is if he conducts and illegal search and decides to cut open my sleeping bag to see if I have drugs hidden inside the insulation the only thing that is going to happen is I will be buying a new sleeping bag out of my own funds.
BTW an illegal arrest is pretty much the same thing. The only thing that happens if they arrest you illegally is they let you go. (Quite possibly miles away from the trail)
JustaTouron
01-23-2010, 14:51
With all due respect to legal theory, have any criminal lawyers participating in this thread ever known a law enforcement officer to lie with regard to whether or not he was given permission to conduct a search?
Not a lawyer (but I passed the bar, long story), in my brief stint as an intern at the PD office I had one defendant claim that he didn't consent to a search, he also claimed the pot wasn't his and was planted by the cop. He did admit that the digital scale and zip lock bags belonged to him. Feel free to draw your own conclusions. :-?
Most of my clients were completely innocent and many of them were victims of being framed by the cops. :rolleyes:
I am willing to bet every criminal defense attorney has clients who claim the police have lied about permission. And in some cases it may have even occurred.
Lone Wolf
01-23-2010, 14:55
If a cop asks to search your bag, you can refuse, correct
yes. i was at the grand canyon one year and was asked if they could search my day pack. i said no
JustaTouron
01-23-2010, 15:22
yes. i was at the grand canyon one year and was asked if they could search my day pack. i said no
You can say "no" if they ask permission. If you don't give permission they can still want to search your bag without your permission, if you resist their attempts to do the search you will be arrested.
Lone Wolf
01-23-2010, 15:24
You can say "no" if they ask permission. If you don't give permission they can still want to search your bag without your permission, if you resist their attempts to do the search you will be arrested.
wrong. it ain't how it works
JustaTouron
01-23-2010, 15:36
Usually the fruit of the search is what one would consider to be obtained through an unlawful search. This is known as the doctrine of "the fruit of the poisonous tree." For example, a LEO wants to pat you down for weapons. While doing so, he feels something soft in your pants pocket. He removes it and its a small bag of weed. One would generally consider such "fruit" to be the result of an unlawful search, as it is not reasonable to believe that some soft item is a weapon. However, one way or another you are not going to get your weed back and if you are subsequently arrested, the burden of proof is upon YOU to convince a judge/justice/magistrate during a pre-trial hearing that the search and resulting find was outside the scope of a weapon patdown.
Not necessarily. IIRC if the officer immediately knew from the feel that the item was probably illicit drugs AND the original Terry pat down was lawful then the drugs could come in under the "plain feel" doctrine.
JustaTouron
01-23-2010, 15:44
wrong. it ain't how it works
If you say so, its been awhile since I took crim pro, I have forgotten much. It is also possible that the court has made changes since then, but my understanding is Roberts and Rehnquist haven't exactly been defense friendly changes.
Your right Justa. I escorted hundreds of prisoners to outside hospitals during the 20+ years I worked in the Federal Prison system. They were always cuffed and leg ironed, and I always carried a weapon.
yes. i was at the grand canyon one year and was asked if they could search my day pack. i said no
So how did the cop respond?
Lone Wolf
01-24-2010, 01:42
So how did the cop respond?
he asked me to put the pack on the ground
Its important for people in such situations to be respectful and not try an outsmart the LEO who (hopefully) has far, far more experience in these situations.
Don't, for example, try and record the encounter on your MP3 player without the officer's explicit consent. In states like Massachusetts you would be violating anti wiretap law.
Know your rights. Don't lie. And remember who can screw up your day more than you an screw up theirs.
SmokeEater
01-25-2010, 12:33
If you havent done anything wrong then you shouldnt have anything to worry about.
SGT Rock
01-25-2010, 14:53
Been my experience with the local guys they will just take the report and get on with the nights business. One less robber to deal with.
Rain Man
01-25-2010, 18:33
These two videos illustrate why you should never talk to the police...this is a recording of a two part lecture given to law students...the first part is given by a defense attorney, the second part is given by a police detective:
Defense Attorney:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
The "Defense Attorney" law professor hit the nail on the head ... and pounded it into the coffin! Thank God for the Bill of Rights... ALL of them.
I'll have to listen to the officer later, since the videos are lengthy.
Rain:sunMan
.
Rain Man
01-25-2010, 23:10
These two videos illustrate why you should never talk to the police...this is a recording of a two part lecture given to law students...the first part is given by a defense attorney, the second part is given by a police detective:
Police Detective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
The Police Detective's video was okay. He came out and said the Defense Attorney was right-- "NEVER talk to the Police." And it was kinda nice that he came clean about all the lying the Police do. Of course, he did the usual dissimulation of claiming a near 100% success rate. DA's make the same self-serving faux claim. Since they only calculate that based on cases they choose to go after (and include confessions), the calculation it totally rigged.
Rain Man
.
Mountain Dew
01-26-2010, 03:55
Are you referring part #2 ? When the police officer said to never talk to the police, he was obviously meaning.... IF YOU ARE GUILTY.
Did the DA come out and say that police always lie ? I didnt watch that video, but the police officer did not say what you appear to claim.
Im currious though.... How much were they paid to speak and why do you look JUST like the officer ?
Two Speed
01-26-2010, 10:38
You're absolutely positive those two groups never overlap?
SmokeEater
01-26-2010, 11:52
You're absolutely positive those two groups never overlap?
Yes but that goes for all aspects of life.