+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30
 
  1. #11
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    The elements of L&P are:
    - statutorily defined
    - along with case law precedent.
    Both go together (if you want an L&P case to stick). However, there are very few L&P arrests and most of them are at nighttime. As an officer, you are required by law to give the citizen an opportunity to "dispel" your concerns. Your concerns must be predicated on what other officers (in your situation) would think. In other words: are you (as an officer) being reasonable?

    Anyway, a citizen cannot be punished for refused to answer questions. If a citizen is loitering and prowling, at a time and place that cannot be legally justified, then arresting him for L&P isn't not punishing him, even if he refuses to answer questions.
    You have to give the person the chance post Miranda to dispel you concerns. So if they choose not to answer your questions then yes they can and usually will be arrested

  2. #12
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    You have to give the person the chance post Miranda to dispel you concerns. So if they choose not to answer your questions then yes they can and usually will be arrested.
    That's correct. Miranda applies when there is both custody and interrogation. An investigative stop is usually considered custody, and the officer is interrogating the subject(s). While the concept of "proving your innocence" is generally contrary to the Bill of Rights, Florida's L&P law is an anti-crime law meant to protect property. If you think about it the law is chiefly applied on private property, so there is a possible element of trespass as well. The legislature (and courts) realize many crimes such as burglary take place after business hours and the law is valid yet confusing as written.

    Every case is different. I applied it once for a stop on midnight shift when I saw two people at the door of a business that had been closed for hours. As it turned out, they were a male & female looking for some alone time, so that dispelled any alarm. The male had a warrant, so he was arrested for that. Had they refused to say why they were there, then yes they would have been arrested for L&P. I recall an informal description of this type of crime was being stupid out of season. Had they simply been walking on the sidewalk in front of the business there would not have been a valid reason to stop them.

    Here's the Florida bar's take on L&P from 1997 as revised in 2012:
    https://www.floridabar.org/divcom/jn...256ADB005D617F


    The senior trooper in NJ clearly realized the rookies had made a critical mistake and did what he could to make the attorney whole. IMO she'll get some type of settlement.

  3. #13
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Playing Devils advocate in attempt to further a good, so far, intelligent conversation.
    Part of our job is to make sure the DL is not fraudulent or fake, or damaged right? The purpose of the license is to ID the driver and the address. Can you positively identify the person (simply meaning matching their photo with the person), verify address, and confirming the DL is not fraudulent, if the driver doesn't hand over the DL. Sure I guess you could, but I would prefer to cover my @$$. I have been to identify hearings of people who claim they were not the person driving, even when they physically produced the DL. On one of those occasions the defendant had pictures of the individual using her identity. They looked very similar. She was a legit victim of fraud. If you ask for the DL to be turned over physically, and they refuse, after explaining your reasoning such as listed above, what I am saying is proper creative and articulate writing you can arrest the subject, and you would be good. If the report sounds vindictive and spiteful then yeah no bueno. Make the report sound as if you are trying to do you job and investigate all documents, (because isn't false representation of insurance a misdemeanor as well? ) occupants etc within the extent of the stop. Just my opinion. Remember we can't let the driver control the stop.

  4. #14
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Back to the original question. Regardless of what some may argue, the answer is: NO!

  5. #15
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Back to the original question. Regardless of what some may argue, the answer is: NO!
    Agreed. Making an arrest is not to punish someone (at least in theory). However, this excludes the occasional belligerent citizen who talks himself into getting arrested. Those kinds of arrests are rare.

    For all garden variety cases: IF an arrest is made, then it is done based on the PC of a crime that is fully explained in an affidavit.

  6. #16
    Unregistered
    Guest
    And troopers question why the Legislature is starting the dismantling of FHP.....

  7. #17
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    And troopers question why the Legislature is starting the dismantling of FHP.....
    Honestly these guys were right on the money and clearly understand how and when the L&P statute applies. This is nothing FHP related honestly its probably rarely used by FHP since the type of work they do. But locals use it all the time, and while yes a lot of arrests dont come out of it. It does give you PC to detain someone ID them and find out what they are doing. Proactive police work in action, it prevents a lot of property crimes..

  8. #18
    Unregistered
    Guest

    HB 7061 died

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    And troopers question why the Legislature is starting the dismantling of FHP.....
    News flash: They are not. That bill has died. It had a bunch of hidden costs that few bothered to research, and there was never a bill in the Senate to do it. Look at the votes- 2 nays in the first committee, then 5 in the second one- where there was a lot more discussion and information. I think the sponsor knew it would not pass the final one, so it was never heard.

    I agree with the other post here that the replies for the most part have been very intelligent and accurate. That's unusual for this site but good to see.

  9. #19
    Unregistered
    Guest
    The word "retaliate" is completely inappropriate. LEOs should not ever retaliate. Carry on.

  10. #20
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    You obviously feel power from your badge. No SAO would take your case. Hanging out behind a closed business is not against the law. And moron, in this country a citizen is not required to "dispel" your suspicions. You give cops a bad name. Get over your power trip.
    Umm you are clearly not a cop...Let me ask you this assuming your a Trooper when you ask someone to do SFST you do it to what? Dispel your supession correct. Or if you find drugs and the passenger and the driver both invoke their rights...Well you charge them both because they chose not to talk and they therefore can't dispel your supession. It's actually pretty common practice in law enforcement

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •