Odd encounter with law enforcement.

Well, I guess I just can't hold my tongue any longer.

Guys-
As stated before, I would not have given my birthdate or wife's name, on principle, under these circumstances. I don't quite understand how this makes me "anti-cop" or "pro-criminal". You want my Driver's License during a traffic stop? Fine. Want personal data after determining that I may have been a witness to a crime on the street? No problem.

Just don't come into my home and begin to ask for personal data when investigating youth vandalism...to an unoccupied structure...when I'm not even a suspect. To equate this position to "cop bashing" is, IMHO, personally insulting. While I have no problem with the officer who's requested to do so for a report, I have a real problem with the Policy. It trains cops to believe they have a right to demand personal info or access from anyone at any time....once the population has accepted such behavior, what's next? "No, sir, you don't have to let me search your car, but the dogs are right up the highway. I can get them here in 5 minutes"?....oops, we already experience that one, don't we. Have we learned nothing from the manner in which the Second Amendment has been eroded?

It seems to me that those who would argue that the cops "needed" such information, in DaddyCat's case, assume that non-LEO's believe that cops are supposed to solve all crimes. This non-LEO doesn't believe that. I want you guys to be safe and solve what you can within the parameters of the maxim, "Don't tread on me". That means, when you've been invited into my home to assist you, tread lightly.

This concept that government must be given the tools to solve all societal problems is the basis for erosion of each of the Bill of Rights. The Second is not special in that regard.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
William Pitt, 18 Nov 1783 [/quote]

Rich Lucibella

[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited July 28, 2000).]
 
The line LEOs do not have a choice in the matter. As some of the other LEOs here have said if that info isn't included in the report you get your superior chewing on your butt.

My suggestion to all who posted here is if you don't like it take your complaint to the chief. The reason why LEOs are calling this cop bashing is because some of the people here are directing it towards line LEOs. We have far less control over this than private citizens. If I were to complain about getting this info I would be told if you don't like it there is the door.
 
mrat-
What would happen if your report stated:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Interviewed Mr. Richard J. Lucibella, 123 Anywhere Street.
Mr. Lucibella stated that he walks his dog, Scruffy, every day from 06:30-06:45, 18:30-1900 and 2200-2215. He claims to be alert to his surroundings and has seen nothing unusual. When asked about neighborhood children, Mr Lucibella responded that the Smith, Brown and Walker children often play in the vacant lot across fronm the comlex.

When asked for his birthdate and wife's name, Mr. Lucibella flatly refused on 'principle' explaining that he could easily be reached by telephone, doorbell, the telephone company credit records, the local Heat, Power and Light credit records, his neighbors, the Real Estate Multiple Listing Service, his mortgage or his auto license plate (which a competent investigator would certainly have noted).[/quote]

I am honestly not baiting you. I really want to know what the brass would say.
Rich
 
Rich, I ask for photo I.D. in instances when I interview a person because I can get contact info AND I positively I.D. the witness. People lie to cops all the time for various reasons. I've not yet had the problem of the witness refusing, but in this state (TX), that's a violation of the law. A cop should be able to know who he's talking to. Otherwise, your report above would begin: "A man claiming to be Mr. Lucibella stated..." This makes police work messy. Heck, Daddy stated that he's new to the area-- suppose the man claiming to be him was the man who was busily burgling Daddy's house?

Rich, I'm a huge (little L) libertarian as well. You know that. But asking for photo I.D. expedites a lot of cop-work without really giving the cops anything personal about you. That info asked for was only the bare minimum of DL info. Sure, a criminal history could be run, but those have to be answered for, and VERY hard questions get asked when someone gets run for no reason.

FWIW, I find it mildly odd the way the cop handled it, and can understand a slight paranoia about it. ;)
 
Well folks, it seems to me that this entire discussion would not have come about, with proper departmental training.

A simple polite statement by the LEOs involved, such as: "Sir (or Mam), would you mind very much if we ask for some personal information for our contact report? You've been very cooperative and helpful, and we really appreciate your assistance. The information you give will not be released to the public, and if you do not wish to provide personal information other than your names, that is your legal right."

This very same courtesy is extended to all criminal suspects in the form of "You have the right to remain silent.......". :)

I think that alienating your community police officers, by refusing to give information (such as your SSAN that almost anyone can find with a little effort), is taking caution to the extreme. Does anyone here truly believe, that an identity thief is going to go to all the trouble (and risk) of impersonating a police officer?

Bill


[This message has been edited by Bill Adair (edited July 29, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top