Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington comma the Great State of.
    Posts
    1,211

    Default Being Touched vs. Being Seized by the Police

    Well, being poked in the shoulder, despite from whom, is an assault consummated by battery.

    Just because he's a police officer doesn't mean he can walk around jabbing his finger into people.

    Moreover, many jurisdictions requires that police officers identify themselves when asked. Identification isn't usually "well, I'm a cop." You'll want to check your local/state laws on it, but it's generally something like they have to present you with a commission card showing they're a police officer if you specifically request it.

    On that card will be the officer's name and status.

    In some places, you may or may not have the right to deny them access to a guest log depending on what sort of business you are. However, the police generally can't come in and demand if the business isn't open without having a warrant that would allow them to come in and inspect files without the company's consent.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Police

    Quote Quoting coolguycooz
    View Post
    according to the courts you are seized if there is ANY sort of physical contact by a police officer even if it feels like a friendly poke or hand placement on the shoulder , also the presence of multiple officers indicates a seizure as well. due to the fact that an average and reasonable person would feel that they were not free to go based on the physical contact or multiple officers aspect.

    So your 4th amendment was violated for sure!!!

    However you have no legal standing of the log book so you cant even challange the officers with that aspect.
    where do you get the OP was "seized"?. He was at work doing his job. OP never stated he attempted, or even disired to leave. As a matter of fact, he was free enough to be able to call his supervisor.


    as to demanding the books; no warrant, no peekie, investigation or not. It is private property. Now that does not mean OP's rights were violated, concerning taking the logs, since the logs were not his but merely in his charge. It could mean that the evidence discovered in the logs may be suspect if used to prosecute somebody.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    10

    Default Re: Police Demand for Visitor Log Books

    My teacher that taught search and siezure was a prosecutor for the DA's office for like 15 years in the state of california.

    I guess everybody has a different perspective, but the teacher indicated that a physical touch by a police officer indicates a seizure, in this case especially a poke on the shoulder.(in this situation there were two dimensions of the siezed test that indicated a siezure by law enforcement, *established by the supreme court*, ) Just because you dont try to leave doesn't mean your not seized. There are actually guidelines to indicate a siezure. In this case i think two factors apply to the siezure, the multiple officer aspect as well as the poke on the shoulder. You dont have to attempt the free to leave test before you are actually under seized status!

    Think about it, what i ment by friendly touch is,!!! Your hanging out on the street corner, an officer comes up to you and says, hey hows it going *friendly tone the entire time*. Your like good whatever, so then he comes up within arms reach and says " well hey, i want to ask you a couple questions about the drug issue we have been having on this street corner" as he places his hand on your shoulder at the same time* if i was standing next to him it would look like a friendly touch to me* but! I would think a reasonable person would feel as though the officer was now wanting you to stay! therefor siezed

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Police Demand for Visitor Log Books

    You dont have to attempt the free to leave test before you are actually under seized status!
    but you have to believe you are not free to leave.

    this is very similar to the crime of assault. If you are not aware a person is going to hit you, there is no assault. If you are hit, there is a battery but no assault. If you see a person going to strike you and you believe they are going to hit you, you have been assaulted plus a battery has been committed.

    again, I point out OP was free to use the telephone at will so apparently there was no belief he was seized. The police apparently made no attempt to stop the phone call so they did not intend to seize the OP either.

    as to a poke being indicative of a seizure; I would think the opposite. If an officer poked me, the last thing I would think is he is trying to make me stay anywhere.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington comma the Great State of.
    Posts
    1,211

    Default Re: Police Demand for Visitor Log Books

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    but you have to believe you are not free to leave.

    this is very similar to the crime of assault. If you are not aware a person is going to hit you, there is no assault. If you are hit, there is a battery but no assault. If you see a person going to strike you and you believe they are going to hit you, you have been assaulted plus a battery has been committed.

    again, I point out OP was free to use the telephone at will so apparently there was no belief he was seized. The police apparently made no attempt to stop the phone call so they did not intend to seize the OP either.

    as to a poke being indicative of a seizure; I would think the opposite. If an officer poked me, the last thing I would think is he is trying to make me stay anywhere.
    Unless he had to leave the building/room to use the phone, I don't see how that proves he wasn't seized.

    Seizure happens when you're not free to leave. The test isn't whether you're free to use the phone. It's whether your body is allowed to leave the area/building.


    I don't see how a poke in the shoulder is a seizure. Assault and battery I see. But I've never poked someone into custody.

    I'm curious about one thing: what kind of business when closed has someone on duty to log people in. If it's closed and people are visiting the business such that they have to be logged in, is it closed? Or do people still mill around after the time it's closed and were just waiting to log out?

    If it was closed, how'd the officers get inside anyway?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Police Demand for Visitor Log Books

    =ashman165;251319]Unless he had to leave the building/room to use the phone, I don't see how that proves he wasn't seized.
    It doesn't prove my poin, it merely goes to the fact he was not restricted from acting as he desired. If an officer has "seized" a person, they would generally control and restrict that persons actions.

    Seizure happens when you're not free to leave. The test isn't whether you're free to use the phone. It's whether your body is allowed to leave the area/building.
    true but since the guy apparently did not attempt to leave and was stationed where he was supposed to be, the only thing we have that speaks to a possible detention is how restricted or how free was the guy in his actions.

    He never stated he did not believe he was not free to leave. Gave no indication he believed he was not free to leave.

    While it may have been a "seizure", I do not see any facts that support it.

    I'm still waiting for cooz to tell me how multiple officers makes it a seizure. If that is the criteria for such a determination, I suspect everybody that walks into a dunkin donuts late at night is having their rights violated due to an unwarranted seizure by the mutlitude of officers generally there.


    (it's a joke but it supports my point)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington comma the Great State of.
    Posts
    1,211

    Default Re: Police Demand for Visitor Log Books

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    It doesn't prove my poin, it merely goes to the fact he was not restricted from acting as he desired. If an officer has "seized" a person, they would generally control and restrict that persons actions.

    true but since the guy apparently did not attempt to leave and was stationed where he was supposed to be, the only thing we have that speaks to a possible detention is how restricted or how free was the guy in his actions.

    He never stated he did not believe he was not free to leave. Gave no indication he believed he was not free to leave.

    While it may have been a "seizure", I do not see any facts that support it.

    I'm still waiting for cooz to tell me how multiple officers makes it a seizure. If that is the criteria for such a determination, I suspect everybody that walks into a dunkin donuts late at night is having their rights violated due to an unwarranted seizure by the mutlitude of officers generally there.


    (it's a joke but it supports my point)

    If 15 officers walk up to you and surround you, would you think you're free to leave even if you are? Would the average person think that? A show of force sufficiently powerful in and of itself can be a seizure. That's why cops use shows of force: to dominate people into submission. How else would you define a seizure?

    And no MJF jokes after that question! And no epilepsy ones either.

    Here, there were a couple of officers exerting positive control over his actions: you must comply with this request or else you go to jail. While some people might argue that he should understand that to mean he's not yet detained, that's far from obvious to an average person.


    The seizure thing might not turn on any single point, and if you parse it up that finely then you're reading too narrowly into the subject for any meaningful conclusion. It a totality of the circumstances.

    Also, the test of whether one is seized never turns on the person actually trying to leave.

    It's whether one feels free to leave, not whether one tries to leave.

    You say nothing here indicates to you that he might have felt seized. Well, how about that he's asking about it?

    Poor dunkin' donuts - why is it always the butt of cop jokes? Or is that backwards?

    It's high time that more police officers figure out that being a cop doesn't make them special. It doesn't imbue them with special rights to break laws others would be arrested for. Think i'm exaggerating? Walk up and rough-talk a cop and then poke him in the shoulder.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Behind a Desk
    Posts
    98,846

    Default Re: Police Demand for Visitor Log Books

    When your inclination is to take a discussion far afield from the question asked, it's courteous to start a new thread.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,593

    Default Re: Police Demand for Visitor Log Books

    Quote Quoting ashman165
    View Post
    Walk up and rough-talk a cop and then poke him in the shoulder.
    Rough talk, fine ... so long as it is not a credible threat or impeding my duties. If someone wants to cuss, scream, go "oink, oink", they can be my guest - I need amusement, too.

    Poke me in the shoulder, they're going to jail (it's called battery on a peace officer in this state) ... after he collects himself from the pavement.

    - Carl
    **********
    Retired Cal Cop Sergeant & Teacher

    Seek justice,
    Love mercy,
    Walk humbly with your God

    -- Courageous, by Casting Crowns ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkM-gDcmJeM

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,835

    Default Re: Police Demand for Visitor Log Books

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    While it may have been a "seizure", I do not see any facts that support it.

    I'm still waiting for cooz to tell me how multiple officers makes it a seizure.
    (it's a joke but it supports my point)
    jk, I have read that myself in seizure case law. I would have to look around, but the USSC, I believe, has stated that the presence of multiple officers is one way to "possibly" constitute a seizure, as a possible "show of authority" to a pesron, as this would indicate they were not free to leave.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Victims Rights: How do Victims Recover Property, Weapons or Firearms Seized By Police After Theft
    By debbie111 in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-19-2011, 07:49 PM
  2. Search and Seizure: Pulled Over for Minor Traffic Violation, Police Searched and Seized Marijuana
    By harkoo in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-17-2009, 10:24 PM
  3. Sex Offenses: Touched by My Teacher in California
    By username711 in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-17-2008, 01:53 PM
  4. Search and Seizure: Getting the Police to Return Seized Computer Equipment
    By BigRedOne in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-09-2008, 04:12 PM
  5. Police Won't Return Seized Item
    By 04compg in forum Police Investigations
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-14-2008, 01:21 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources