Police Activity Aboard California Zephyr

[NAVYBLUE]

Although a majority of the LEOs I have met are professional, everyone needs to understand you are under NO obligation to interact with a police officer. We in Clark County(Las Vegas area) have a very zealous group who don't understand Nevada law on open carry of weapons who like to TRY to intimidate law abiding citizens. If I am on a train and and an officer approaches my sleeping compartment and asks me questions the reply AFTER I get his name and badge # is:

1. This conversation is NOT consensual.

2. Am I being charged with a violation of state or federal laws ?

3. As the answer from him/her can only be no, then my next rely is

4. Sir/madam, then this conversation has ended, I have not requested or approved a consensual conversation.

5. Am I free to continue my privacy.

You again are NOT required to give them your name, you are NOT required to prove who you are and you are NOT required to enter in to a conversation with them.

My brother and Uncle are former LEOs and I had some military LEO experience. I appreciate the the difficult conditions present LEOs work under now a days but I will not let them use me while they go on a fishing trip to find out what they are trying to find out.

The above is NULL and VOID If you are stopped for violating a law.

NAVYBLUE

 

[Donctor]

Wow! that reminds me of when I took the Direct Orient from Istanbul to Paris in 1971. When crossing the Bulgarian frontier during the middle of the night, the police came on board and woke up everyone in the Wagon Lit to check passports and questioned people. At other frontier crossings, during the night, the Wagon Lit conductor would collect tickets and passports to show to the police and no one was usually woke up. Of course that was when Bulgaria was a communist country and somewhat of a police state.

That still happens on overnight trains going into/out of Switzerland. It's fun.

 

[AlanB]

Although a majority of the LEOs I have met are professional, everyone needs to understand you are under NO obligation to interact with a police officer. We in Clark County(Las Vegas area) have a very zealous group who don't understand Nevada law on open carry of weapons who like to TRY to intimidate law abiding citizens. If I am on a train and and an officer approaches my sleeping compartment and asks me questions the reply AFTER I get his name and badge # is:

1. This conversation is NOT consensual.

2. Am I being charged with a violation of state or federal laws ?

3. As the answer from him/her can only be no, then my next rely is

4. Sir/madam, then this conversation has ended, I have not requested or approved a consensual conversation.

5. Am I free to continue my privacy.

You again are NOT required to give them your name, you are NOT required to prove who you are and you are NOT required to enter in to a conversation with them.

My brother and Uncle are former LEOs and I had some military LEO experience. I appreciate the the difficult conditions present LEOs work under now a days but I will not let them use me while they go on a fishing trip to find out what they are trying to find out.

The above is NULL and VOID If you are stopped for violating a law.

NAVYBLUE

And all that officer needs to do is go get any Amtrak employee and have them demand your ID. And since a condition of your travel is that you must provide valid ID when asked by an Amtrak employee, you will either have to fork over that ID or find yourself watching the tail lights fade into the distance.

So frankly all you'd be doing by refusing the officer is making things harder for yourself, the Amtrak employees, and delaying the train and everyone on it.

And while I'd certainly defer to a lawyer's opinion, I rather suspect that by the fact that the officers were allowed on the train in an official capacity, it could well be argued that they do get the power to demand your ID because of the conditions of travel imposed upon you by Amtrak.

 

[Everydaymatters]

Although a majority of the LEOs I have met are professional, everyone needs to understand you are under NO obligation to interact with a police officer. We in Clark County(Las Vegas area) have a very zealous group who don't understand Nevada law on open carry of weapons who like to TRY to intimidate law abiding citizens. If I am on a train and and an officer approaches my sleeping compartment and asks me questions the reply AFTER I get his name and badge # is:

1. This conversation is NOT consensual.

2. Am I being charged with a violation of state or federal laws ?

3. As the answer from him/her can only be no, then my next rely is

4. Sir/madam, then this conversation has ended, I have not requested or approved a consensual conversation.

5. Am I free to continue my privacy.

You again are NOT required to give them your name, you are NOT required to prove who you are and you are NOT required to enter in to a conversation with them.

My brother and Uncle are former LEOs and I had some military LEO experience. I appreciate the the difficult conditions present LEOs work under now a days but I will not let them use me while they go on a fishing trip to find out what they are trying to find out.

The above is NULL and VOID If you are stopped for violating a law.

NAVYBLUE

I lived in the Chicago area most of my life and I can tell you that you would never, ever want to speak like that to Chicago law enforcement. You'd be on on the losing side.

 

[NAVYBLUE]

Although a majority of the LEOs I have met are professional, everyone needs to understand you are under NO obligation to interact with a police officer. We in Clark County(Las Vegas area) have a very zealous group who don't understand Nevada law on open carry of weapons who like to TRY to intimidate law abiding citizens. If I am on a train and and an officer approaches my sleeping compartment and asks me questions the reply AFTER I get his name and badge # is:

1. This conversation is NOT consensual.

2. Am I being charged with a violation of state or federal laws ?

3. As the answer from him/her can only be no, then my next rely is

4. Sir/madam, then this conversation has ended, I have not requested or approved a consensual conversation.

5. Am I free to continue my privacy.

You again are NOT required to give them your name, you are NOT required to prove who you are and you are NOT required to enter in to a conversation with them.

My brother and Uncle are former LEOs and I had some military LEO experience. I appreciate the the difficult conditions present LEOs work under now a days but I will not let them use me while they go on a fishing trip to find out what they are trying to find out.

The above is NULL and VOID If you are stopped for violating a law.

NAVYBLUE

And all that officer needs to do is go get any Amtrak employee and have them demand your ID. And since a condition of your travel is that you must provide valid ID when asked by an Amtrak employee, you will either have to fork over that ID or find yourself watching the tail lights fade into the distance.

So frankly all you'd be doing by refusing the officer is making things harder for yourself, the Amtrak employees, and delaying the train and everyone on it.

And while I'd certainly defer to a lawyer's opinion, I rather suspect that by the fact that the officers were allowed on the train in an official capacity, it could well be argued that they do get the power to demand your ID because of the conditions of travel imposed upon you by Amtrak.

My constitutional rights DO NOT stop when I get on an AMTRAK and if others are inconvenienced, so be it. NOW, if the conductor wants to see my ID, he will get it with my tickets with the statement "YOU are receiving my ID and my tickets to verify who I am. YOU may then tell the police officer I am NOT the person they are looking for. If, YOU give my ID to the law enforcement officer, then I am going to SUE you and AMTRAK for violating my rights by illegal search and seizure.

You sheeple can bend over and let them stick it to you, but I am not. Again I understand the tough job they are doing BUT my freedoms where fought and died for and I don't relinquish them to anyone. We do this all the time in Clark County especially at the DUI stops. None of my "group" has ever been arrested and we are always told we are free to go on with the window never being lowered more than a few inches to tell them the stop is not consensual and we are not answering any questions. Our large "group" are gun owners and since I know everyone of them fairly well I can tell you we have liberals, conservatives, independents, libertarians, couple of none of your business and white collar, blue collar, etc. Our common bond is gun ownership and pratice together

It is interesting that most are former military or former LEOs who were part of an organization with strict rules. Many are us are members of HOA neighborhood watch and patrol our neighborhood and interact with LEOS and do ride alongs with local LEOs so it's not like we are outcasts.

That being said, "When people fear the government you have tyranny, when the government fears the people you have freedom.

NAVYBLUE

 

[AlanB]

Although a majority of the LEOs I have met are professional, everyone needs to understand you are under NO obligation to interact with a police officer. We in Clark County(Las Vegas area) have a very zealous group who don't understand Nevada law on open carry of weapons who like to TRY to intimidate law abiding citizens. If I am on a train and and an officer approaches my sleeping compartment and asks me questions the reply AFTER I get his name and badge # is:

1. This conversation is NOT consensual.

2. Am I being charged with a violation of state or federal laws ?

3. As the answer from him/her can only be no, then my next rely is

4. Sir/madam, then this conversation has ended, I have not requested or approved a consensual conversation.

5. Am I free to continue my privacy.

You again are NOT required to give them your name, you are NOT required to prove who you are and you are NOT required to enter in to a conversation with them.

My brother and Uncle are former LEOs and I had some military LEO experience. I appreciate the the difficult conditions present LEOs work under now a days but I will not let them use me while they go on a fishing trip to find out what they are trying to find out.

The above is NULL and VOID If you are stopped for violating a law.

NAVYBLUE

And all that officer needs to do is go get any Amtrak employee and have them demand your ID. And since a condition of your travel is that you must provide valid ID when asked by an Amtrak employee, you will either have to fork over that ID or find yourself watching the tail lights fade into the distance.

So frankly all you'd be doing by refusing the officer is making things harder for yourself, the Amtrak employees, and delaying the train and everyone on it.

And while I'd certainly defer to a lawyer's opinion, I rather suspect that by the fact that the officers were allowed on the train in an official capacity, it could well be argued that they do get the power to demand your ID because of the conditions of travel imposed upon you by Amtrak.

My constitutional rights DO NOT stop when I get on an AMTRAK and if others are inconvenienced, so be it. NOW, if the conductor wants to see my ID, he will get it with my tickets with the statement "YOU are receiving my ID and my tickets to verify who I am. YOU may then tell the police officer I am NOT the person they are looking for. If, YOU give my ID to the law enforcement officer, then I am going to SUE you and AMTRAK for violating my rights by illegal search and seizure.

You sheeple can bend over and let them stick it to you, but I am not. Again I understand the tough job they are doing BUT my freedoms where fought and died for and I don't relinquish them to anyone. We do this all the time in Clark County especially at the DUI stops. None of my "group" has ever been arrested and we are always told we are free to go on with the window never being lowered more than a few inches to tell them the stop is not consensual and we are not answering any questions. Our large "group" are gun owners and since I know everyone of them fairly well I can tell you we have liberals, conservatives, independents, libertarians, couple of none of your business and white collar, blue collar, etc. Our common bond is gun ownership and pratice together

It is interesting that most are former military or former LEOs who were part of an organization with strict rules. Many are us are members of HOA neighborhood watch and patrol our neighborhood and interact with LEOS and do ride alongs with local LEOs so it's not like we are outcasts.

That being said, "When people fear the government you have tyranny, when the government fears the people you have freedom.

NAVYBLUE

Actually Amtrak can impose any conditions it wishes upon you for travel, within reason. No one is forcing you to buy the ticket, therefore Amtrak can impose any rules it sees fit. You then have the choice to either buy the ticket and obey or find another way to travel.

And this can easily be seen by the rule that if one fails to submit to a search by law enforcement, then one will receive a refund of one's ticket(s) and will not be permitted to travel on Amtrak.

 

[Steve4031]

Honestly, if im not doing anything wrong, I could care less. I don't do drugs, I don't drink. I just ride and look out the window. If the police go through the train with a drug dog, or ask me questions, I'll answer and let them move on. To do other wise IMHO distracts them and causes them to waste additional time on me rather than drug dealers.

Getting in a pissing match with an incompetent police officer is foolish and potentially dangerous for most people IMHO.

 

[NAVYBLUE]

Although a majority of the LEOs I have met are professional, everyone needs to understand you are under NO obligation to interact with a police officer. We in Clark County(Las Vegas area) have a very zealous group who don't understand Nevada law on open carry of weapons who like to TRY to intimidate law abiding citizens. If I am on a train and and an officer approaches my sleeping compartment and asks me questions the reply AFTER I get his name and badge # is:

1. This conversation is NOT consensual.

2. Am I being charged with a violation of state or federal laws ?

3. As the answer from him/her can only be no, then my next rely is

4. Sir/madam, then this conversation has ended, I have not requested or approved a consensual conversation.

5. Am I free to continue my privacy.

You again are NOT required to give them your name, you are NOT required to prove who you are and you are NOT required to enter in to a conversation with them.

My brother and Uncle are former LEOs and I had some military LEO experience. I appreciate the the difficult conditions present LEOs work under now a days but I will not let them use me while they go on a fishing trip to find out what they are trying to find out.

The above is NULL and VOID If you are stopped for violating a law.

NAVYBLUE

I lived in the Chicago area most of my life and I can tell you that you would never, ever want to speak like that to Chicago law enforcement. You'd be on on the losing side.

See reply to AlanB.

And don't give me the crapola about the bad ass Chicago cops. I always speak in a even tone and use sir and madam. They have to obey the same constitution as everyone one. I know they think they are the Stasi. If they arrest me, I will own the Chicago Cubs as everyone in the "group" carries a video pen that gets "accidentally" turned on during police encounters. And since AMTRAK is technically a government owned corporation we could get the present DOJ (sorry, forget that) involved as it may constitute a federal crime since I am 1/16 Shawnee. I can claim racial discrimination too !!

The NAVYBLUE Cubs. Has a certain ring to it.

I know the people in Illinois like to bend over and take it and they have had more congressman, senators, governors sent to prison than any other state but that doesn't mean I will give up my rights.

NAVYBLUE

 

[Steve4031]

You can have the cubs. They suck.

 

[lthanlon]

I lived in the Chicago area most of my life and I can tell you that you would never, ever want to speak like that to Chicago law enforcement. You'd be on on the losing side.

Agree completely.

 

[NAVYBLUE]

You can have the cubs. They suck.

I hope to someday see a game there as I have been to Fenway Park and my Pittsburgh Pirates when they played at Forbes Field. I miss the old stadiums.

NAVYBLUE

 

[amamba]

Actually, in many states one is required to identify themselves to police by name when asked.

This was decided by the Supreme Court in Hiibel vs. 6th Court of Nevada in 2004.

The supreme court held that giving a name does not violate the 4th or the 5th amendments.

You can find a reasonable summary of which states have so-called "stop and identify" statues here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

It sounds like NavyBlue will use his statements and line of questioning to assert that he is not being treated as a "terry stop" and thus would have no obligation to give his name during a "stop and identify".

"Stop and identify" and "stop and frisk" are becoming quite common in many places, and it very hard to fight these types of stops in court because all the officer needs is "reasonable suspicion", which legally, is pretty easy for them to obtain.

Personally, while I definitely be annoyed and frustrated if police officers had entered my sleeper as the OP experienced, I would just answer their questions so that they could be on their way as quickly as possible.

I am not a fan of what I consider to be heavy handed police tactics on the train.

 

[Steve4031]

IMHO, the problem here is that drug dealers have discovered Amtrak as a security free form if transportation. Any competent law enforcement agency is going to figure this out and this means more police activity in and around trains and the stations. So if one is traveling by train. Then police presence at times will be an issue. Still better than airports. G

 

[NAVYBLUE]

Actually, in many states one is required to identify themselves to police by name when asked.

This was decided by the Supreme Court in Hiibel vs. 6th Court of Nevada in 2004.

The supreme court held that giving a name does not violate the 4th or the 5th amendments.

You can find a reasonable summary of which states have so-called "stop and identify" statues here: http://en.wikipedia....entify_statutes

It sounds like NavyBlue will use his statements and line of questioning to assert that he is not being treated as a "terry stop" and thus would have no obligation to give his name during a "stop and identify".

"Stop and identify" and "stop and frisk" are becoming quite common in many places, and it very hard to fight these types of stops in court because all the officer needs is "reasonable suspicion", which legally, is pretty easy for them to obtain.

Personally, while I definitely be annoyed and frustrated if police officers had entered my sleeper as the OP experienced, I would just answer their questions so that they could be on their way as quickly as possible.

I am not a fan of what I consider to be heavy handed police tactics on the train.

You are RIGHT for the WRONG reasons. Here from caselaw.findlaw.com/nv-supremecourt.

HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT

Larry D. HIIBEL, Petitioner, v. The SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of The State of Nevada, in and for the COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, and the Honorable Richard A. Wagner, District Judge, Respondents, The State of Nevada, Real Party in Interest.

 

No. 38876.

 

-- December 20, 2002

Before the Court En Banc.

Steven G. McGuire, State Public Defender, and James P. Logan, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Carson City, for Petitioner.Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General, Carson City;  David G. Allison, District Attorney, and Conrad Hafen, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Humboldt County, for Real Party in Interest.

OPINION

The pertinent issue before us is whether NRS 171.123(3), which requires a person stopped under reasonable suspicion by a police officer to identify himself or herself, violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.   We conclude NRS 171.123(3) does not violate the Fourth Amendment because it strikes a balance between constitutional protections of privacy and the need to protect police officers and the public.   Therefore, Hiibel's petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

In pertinent part, NRS 171.123 provides:

1.   Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

․

3.   The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad.   Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.

4.   A person may not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of this section, and in no event longer than 60 minutes.

In response to a call from police dispatch, Humboldt County Sheriff's Deputy Lee Dove drove to the scene where a concerned citizen had observed someone striking a female passenger inside a truck.   There, Dove spoke to the concerned citizen and was directed to a parked truck.   When Dove approached the truck, he noticed skid marks in the gravel, suggesting the truck had been parked in a sudden and aggressive manner.   Dove saw Larry D. Hiibel standing outside the truck and thought he was intoxicated based on his eyes, mannerisms, speech, and odor.   Hiibel's minor daughter was in the passenger side of the truck.   When Dove asked Hiibel to identify himself, Hiibel refused.   Instead, Hiibel placed his hands behind his back and challenged the officer to take him to jail.

I and my "group" are intimately familiar with NRS 171.123(3) being Nevada residents. It has been tried on members of the group and the police officers lose the issue. This issue above was due to there being a "reasonable suspicion" by eyewitness account of truck, man and woman.

Here is what MY attorney says about RAS.

"Because reasonable suspicion gives officers legal authority to detain you, the absence of reasonable suspicion does not require officers to tell you that you're free to leave. They will often use your uncertainty as an opportunity to ask probing questions even if the conversation is legally "voluntary". In such situations, it's up to you to determine if you're being detained or are free to go. Before answering an officer's questions, you may courteously ask "Officer, am I free to go?" If you're free to go, then go. If the officer's answer is unclear or he asks additional questions, you may persist by repeating "Officer, am I free to go?"

Keep in mind that refusing to answer an officers questions does not create reasonable suspicion. But acting nervous and answering questions inconsistently can create reasonable suspicion. Also, you have the 4th Amendment right to refuse search requests, and your refusal does not create reasonable suspicion.

If you are not free to go, you are being detained. The officer might have some reason to suspect you of a crime, and you may be arrested. In such a situation, your magic words are "I'm going to remain silent. I would like to see a lawyer." These magic words are like a legal condom. Because anything you say can and will be used against you in court, they're your best protection if you're under arrest".

And no reasonable suspicion is NOT easy to obtain.

RAS is obtainable when under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

Please explain to me to me how I sitting in my sleeper room meet any of the conditions above. The answer is none and as such I do not have to identify myself to the "fishing LEO"

If a police officer approaches me he gets the canned response.

It prepares me and others in my group if we are unfortunately required to use our LEGALLy owned open carried/concealed weapon to defend our or a family members life.

All answers can and WILL be used against you. 95% of my encounters with LEOs have been professional and courteous. 5% have been me asking if I am free to go and then departing.

And this is not about weapons, it's about the law.

And please, never quote WIKI anything. You might as well just quote MSNBC. Sorry had to get the political jab in.

And yes, when stopped in a vehicle the LEO gets my respect, my drivers license, insurance papers, retired military ID card and (4) state concealed weapon permits. As both the former LEO relatives have told me the the 10-20 second walk up to a stopped car is the most stressful thing they do short of a gunfight. I also keep BOTH hands on the steering wheel until I get PERMISSION from the LEO to reach towards my glove box for my papers. At night I turn the inside dome light on. I want to make the stop as stress free for the LEO as possible. Now does that sound like someone who wants to make a police officers life miserable. I am not implying you implied that. I just want to let you and others I provide ID when it is REQUIRED.

NAVYBLUE

 

[NAVYBLUE]

Although a majority of the LEOs I have met are professional, everyone needs to understand you are under NO obligation to interact with a police officer. We in Clark County(Las Vegas area) have a very zealous group who don't understand Nevada law on open carry of weapons who like to TRY to intimidate law abiding citizens. If I am on a train and and an officer approaches my sleeping compartment and asks me questions the reply AFTER I get his name and badge # is:

1. This conversation is NOT consensual.

2. Am I being charged with a violation of state or federal laws ?

3. As the answer from him/her can only be no, then my next rely is

4. Sir/madam, then this conversation has ended, I have not requested or approved a consensual conversation.

5. Am I free to continue my privacy.

You again are NOT required to give them your name, you are NOT required to prove who you are and you are NOT required to enter in to a conversation with them.

My brother and Uncle are former LEOs and I had some military LEO experience. I appreciate the the difficult conditions present LEOs work under now a days but I will not let them use me while they go on a fishing trip to find out what they are trying to find out.

The above is NULL and VOID If you are stopped for violating a law.

NAVYBLUE

And all that officer needs to do is go get any Amtrak employee and have them demand your ID. And since a condition of your travel is that you must provide valid ID when asked by an Amtrak employee, you will either have to fork over that ID or find yourself watching the tail lights fade into the distance.

So frankly all you'd be doing by refusing the officer is making things harder for yourself, the Amtrak employees, and delaying the train and everyone on it.

And while I'd certainly defer to a lawyer's opinion, I rather suspect that by the fact that the officers were allowed on the train in an official capacity, it could well be argued that they do get the power to demand your ID because of the conditions of travel imposed upon you by Amtrak.

My constitutional rights DO NOT stop when I get on an AMTRAK and if others are inconvenienced, so be it. NOW, if the conductor wants to see my ID, he will get it with my tickets with the statement "YOU are receiving my ID and my tickets to verify who I am. YOU may then tell the police officer I am NOT the person they are looking for. If, YOU give my ID to the law enforcement officer, then I am going to SUE you and AMTRAK for violating my rights by illegal search and seizure.

You sheeple can bend over and let them stick it to you, but I am not. Again I understand the tough job they are doing BUT my freedoms where fought and died for and I don't relinquish them to anyone. We do this all the time in Clark County especially at the DUI stops. None of my "group" has ever been arrested and we are always told we are free to go on with the window never being lowered more than a few inches to tell them the stop is not consensual and we are not answering any questions. Our large "group" are gun owners and since I know everyone of them fairly well I can tell you we have liberals, conservatives, independents, libertarians, couple of none of your business and white collar, blue collar, etc. Our common bond is gun ownership and pratice together

It is interesting that most are former military or former LEOs who were part of an organization with strict rules. Many are us are members of HOA neighborhood watch and patrol our neighborhood and interact with LEOS and do ride alongs with local LEOs so it's not like we are outcasts.

That being said, "When people fear the government you have tyranny, when the government fears the people you have freedom.

NAVYBLUE

Actually Amtrak can impose any conditions it wishes upon you for travel, within reason. No one is forcing you to buy the ticket, therefore Amtrak can impose any rules it sees fit. You then have the choice to either buy the ticket and obey or find another way to travel.

And this can easily be seen by the rule that if one fails to submit to a search by law enforcement, then one will receive a refund of one's ticket(s) and will not be permitted to travel on Amtrak.

I will abide by "AMTRAK" rules because I read EVERY one of them on the website BEFORE I purchased my tickets.

Please show me EXACTLY on AMTRAK.com's website where I have to answer questions from a local LEO as I travel through their town once I have boarded. Not something you think but the actual section and verbiage.

I understand prior to my boarding that I am subject to a LEO checking my baggage at the station. Depending on their attitude and professionalism I will determine if I wish to continue NOT them.

Once I am on the train they will NOT search my carry on or any personal belonging without a search warrant. I'm sorry. It's the law whether the LEO or AMTRAK likes it or not.

People have to get over this idea that police officers can do anything that want as long as they look like its OK. Since most of you get filtered news and don't know what you don't know(that includes FOX) , you have NO idea of what is happening to people freedoms based on the guise of national security.

State, county and city police are NOT TSA. They can not do anything they want under the name of national security.

But there will be AU members who keep taking it in the shorts because they been made to feel afraid or don't know the law. It's there life. If they want to let a LEO ruin it, I can't help them

NAVYBLUE

 

[Ryan]

I will abide by "AMTRAK" rules because I read EVERY one of them on the website BEFORE I purchased my tickets.

Please show me EXACTLY on AMTRAK.com's website where I have to answer questions from a local LEO as I travel through their town once I have boarded. Not something you think but the actual section and verbiage.

I understand prior to my boarding that I am subject to a LEO checking my baggage at the station. Depending on their attitude and professionalism I will determine if I wish to continue NOT them.

Once I am on the train they will NOT search my carry on or any personal belonging without a search warrant. I'm sorry. It's the law whether the LEO or AMTRAK likes it or not.

I suggest that you read them again.

Amtrak may refuse to carry passengers:
Who have not paid the applicable fare;

Whose conduct is objectionable (such as, but not limited to, being under the influence of alcohol or narcotics);

Whose personal hygiene makes them offensive;

Who pose a health, safety or security hazard to other passengers or employees;

Who refuse to comply with safety or security rules or with instructions of Amtrak personnel;

Who would require Amtrak personnel to provide personal care services or otherwise do not meet the essential requirements for the receipt of Amtrak services; or

Who refuse to consent to Amtrak security inspections of persons and/or baggage onboard Amtrak trains and/or at designated areas, such as train platforms and passenger boarding or waiting areas.

Amtrak employees or other authorized carrier representatives may remove such a passenger from the train at any inhabited place, as necessary under the circumstances, for any of the above reasons.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241337896121

Nice try.

 

[amamba]

And no reasonable suspicion is NOT easy to obtain.

RAS is obtainable when under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

Please explain to me to me how I sitting in my sleeper room meet any of the conditions above. The answer is none and as such I do not have to identify myself to the "fishing LEO"

If a police officer approaches me he gets the canned response.

It prepares me and others in my group if we are unfortunately required to use our LEGALLy owned open carried/concealed weapon to defend our or a family members life.

All answers can and WILL be used against you. 95% of my encounters with LEOs have been professional and courteous. 5% have been me asking if I am free to go and then departing.

And this is not about weapons, it's about the law.

And please, never quote WIKI anything. You might as well just quote MSNBC. Sorry had to get the political jab in.

And yes, when stopped in a vehicle the LEO gets my respect, my drivers license, insurance papers, retired military ID card and (4) state concealed weapon permits. As both the former LEO relatives have told me the the 10-20 second walk up to a stopped car is the most stressful thing they do short of a gunfight. I also keep BOTH hands on the steering wheel until I get PERMISSION from the LEO to reach towards my glove box for my papers. At night I turn the inside dome light on. I want to make the stop as stress free for the LEO as possible. Now does that sound like someone who wants to make a police officers life miserable. I am not implying you implied that. I just want to let you and others I provide ID when it is REQUIRED.

NAVYBLUE

Meh, everyone knows to take wikipedia with a grain of salt. That is why I said "reasonable summary."

But I am going to disagree with you about "reasonable suspicion." The reason that these stop and frisk/stop and identify statutes are so questionable, IMO, is because there are many documented cases where "acting suspicious" is a euphemism for being a member of a racial minority and walking down the street. The New York Times editorial board has called on the Justice Department to investigate abuses of stop and frisk this year.

I am glad that you have those canned responses so that you can figure out how to be courteous with police and not answer their questions. But there are probably lots of other folks out there who, when faced with the situation mentioned by the original poster on the California Zephyr, might not want to answer questions when sitting in the sleeper and minding their own business. Because they don't have your canned responses memorized or know how to handle the situation, they perhaps start to get nervous and are now sweating and stuttering. Now all of a sudden the police say that they have "reasonable suspicion" that they are involved in some sort of criminal activity.

The point of my post was to let people know that in some cases a person can be required to give their name to a police officer. Luckily, we can agree on the supreme court case that I cited which upheld this requirement.

 

[NY Penn]

The thing is, is getting arrested and then suing and then ... really worth the hassle? Isn't it easier to merely answer a few questions? Most people don't have time to sit with police or get hauled to the precinct or something else.

And I've found big-city cops less accepting of canned answers than rural cops. And what's the harm in telling the truth anyway? The truth cannot be used against you if you are doing nothing wrong.

 

[gatelouse]

NAVYBLUE--thanks so much for posting best practices for deflecting annoying probes from LEOs. I suspect that the canned responses, spoken with confidence, would lead 99% of LEOs to profile the speaker as a civil libertarian who's unlikely to be in possession of contraband.

The requirement or non-requirement to state a name is interesting to me. Has this been codified by the Supreme Court or does this requirement vary state-by-state?

 

[amamba]

The requirement or non-requirement to state a name is interesting to me. Has this been codified by the Supreme Court or does this requirement vary state-by-state?

As both NavyBlue and I stated, you may be required to provide your name to police. This was decided in the 2004 supreme court Hiibel vs. Nevada. It a) depends on the state and b) the police must have "reasonable suspicion" during a stop and identify.

Various states have different rules, which is why I provided a link to a "reasonable summary" of the regulations by state on wikipedia. Apparently that source isn't good enough for some folks so I won't repost it, but you are more than welcome to google it up yourself.

 

[NAVYBLUE]

I will abide by "AMTRAK" rules because I read EVERY one of them on the website BEFORE I purchased my tickets.

Please show me EXACTLY on AMTRAK.com's website where I have to answer questions from a local LEO as I travel through their town once I have boarded. Not something you think but the actual section and verbiage.

I understand prior to my boarding that I am subject to a LEO checking my baggage at the station. Depending on their attitude and professionalism I will determine if I wish to continue NOT them.

Once I am on the train they will NOT search my carry on or any personal belonging without a search warrant. I'm sorry. It's the law whether the LEO or AMTRAK likes it or not.

I suggest that you read them again.

Amtrak may refuse to carry passengers:
Who have not paid the applicable fare;

Whose conduct is objectionable (such as, but not limited to, being under the influence of alcohol or narcotics);

Whose personal hygiene makes them offensive;

Who pose a health, safety or security hazard to other passengers or employees;

Who refuse to comply with safety or security rules or with instructions of Amtrak personnel;

Who would require Amtrak personnel to provide personal care services or otherwise do not meet the essential requirements for the receipt of Amtrak services; or

Who refuse to consent to Amtrak security inspections of persons and/or baggage onboard Amtrak trains and/or at designated areas, such as train platforms and passenger boarding or waiting areas.

Amtrak employees or other authorized carrier representatives may remove such a passenger from the train at any inhabited place, as necessary under the circumstances, for any of the above reasons.

http://www.amtrak.co...d=1241337896121

Nice try.

My Statement

"I understand prior to my boarding that I am subject to a LEO checking my baggage at the station. Depending on their attitude and professionalism I will determine if I wish to continue NOT them.

Once I am on the train they will NOT search my carry on or any personal belonging without a search warrant. I'm sorry. It's the law whether the LEO or AMTRAK likes it or not."

It's that English thingy that rears it's ugly head. If you are going to participate you need to go and read every word since this thread started and you will see the conversation is about NON Amtrak LEOs coming aboard to go "fishing" NOT Amtrak officers. Your statement is talking about AMTRAK security personnel who can search my bags before I get on the train and once I am on the train to their hearts content. Once on board they better have RAS or they are in trouble. They can't go fishing either

Here is AMTRAK's regs on searches and though it talks about photography, I'm sure it extends to other situations

http://www.amtrak.co...d=1241267362248

Section IV. Law Enforcement Amtrak Police and Security personnel may approach photographers and videographers upon a complaint from a member of the public or Amtrak personnel that the activity is suspicious in nature, or based upon their own observation that the activity is suspicious in nature or inconsistent with this policy.

1. Amtrak Police and Security Personnel will advise the individual that an inquiry is being conducted for security purposes. Amtrak Police and Security personnel will follow established departmental regulations in this area.
2. Nothing in this policy limits or expands the authority of Amtrak police officers to initiate and pursue investigations, perform a pat down or frisk based upon reasonable suspicion, and/or conduct searches based upon probable cause or any recognized exception to the probable cause requirement in accordance with all legal authority. But the taking of photographs and/or video may not, in and of itself, rise to the level of reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

As I am sure you know that Amtrak officers are graduates of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center they have similar powers that state, county, police officers do. I am not positive, but I believe their powers are limited to actions on Amtrak trains/property but PROBABLY are allowed to detain/arrest some one who they saw commit a felony near Amtrak property. That I am not sure about. Remember, REASONABLE SUSPICION. That's real important when searching persons or baggage.

Oh, I have contacted my attorney in Las Vegas. I say my attorney, but actually he is the "groups" attorney on retainer. He is one of the (3) best defense attorney's in Nevada and has NEVER lost a justifiable use of deadly force case. That's why he was selected. LVMPD has a checkered history of abuse and the Las Vegas Review Journal's Nov/Dec 2011 expose of their history further convinced us that retaining his services was an important move

I explained the context of our posters conversation and he said that most are pretty much incorrect. When they (NON Amtrak LEO's) come fishing, don't give them any bait. No RAS, no conversation. I know we all grew up to go to the police officers when we were in trouble or afraid.. We live in different times. Some think they are the Stasi, some think they are the TSA and some don't think at all.

Again, the 95% get my respect and my co-operation (within limits). The 5% get "the speech.

Nice try, though.

NAVYBLUE

 

[NAVYBLUE]

And no reasonable suspicion is NOT easy to obtain.

RAS is obtainable when under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

Please explain to me to me how I sitting in my sleeper room meet any of the conditions above. The answer is none and as such I do not have to identify myself to the "fishing LEO"

If a police officer approaches me he gets the canned response.

It prepares me and others in my group if we are unfortunately required to use our LEGALLy owned open carried/concealed weapon to defend our or a family members life.

All answers can and WILL be used against you. 95% of my encounters with LEOs have been professional and courteous. 5% have been me asking if I am free to go and then departing.

And this is not about weapons, it's about the law.

And please, never quote WIKI anything. You might as well just quote MSNBC. Sorry had to get the political jab in.

And yes, when stopped in a vehicle the LEO gets my respect, my drivers license, insurance papers, retired military ID card and (4) state concealed weapon permits. As both the former LEO relatives have told me the the 10-20 second walk up to a stopped car is the most stressful thing they do short of a gunfight. I also keep BOTH hands on the steering wheel until I get PERMISSION from the LEO to reach towards my glove box for my papers. At night I turn the inside dome light on. I want to make the stop as stress free for the LEO as possible. Now does that sound like someone who wants to make a police officers life miserable. I am not implying you implied that. I just want to let you and others I provide ID when it is REQUIRED.

NAVYBLUE

Meh, everyone knows to take wikipedia with a grain of salt. That is why I said "reasonable summary."

But I am going to disagree with you about "reasonable suspicion." The reason that these stop and frisk/stop and identify statutes are so questionable, IMO, is because there are many documented cases where "acting suspicious" is a euphemism for being a member of a racial minority and walking down the street. The New York Times editorial board has called on the Justice Department to investigate abuses of stop and frisk this year.

I am glad that you have those canned responses so that you can figure out how to be courteous with police and not answer their questions. But there are probably lots of other folks out there who, when faced with the situation mentioned by the original poster on the California Zephyr, might not want to answer questions when sitting in the sleeper and minding their own business. Because they don't have your canned responses memorized or know how to handle the situation, they perhaps start to get nervous and are now sweating and stuttering. Now all of a sudden the police say that they have "reasonable suspicion" that they are involved in some sort of criminal activity.

The point of my post was to let people know that in some cases a person can be required to give their name to a police officer. Luckily, we can agree on the supreme court case that I cited which upheld this requirement.

This is going to come as a shock, but I agree with the below statements you made.

 

The point of my post was to let people know that in some cases a person can be required to give their name to a police officer. Luckily, we can agree on the supreme court case that I cited which upheld this requirement.

As long as RAS is present, yes you are correct. But you come fishing, I am not giving you any bait.

But I am going to disagree with you about "reasonable suspicion." The reason that these stop and frisk/stop and identify statutes are so questionable, IMO, is because there are many documented cases where "acting suspicious" is a euphemism for being a member of a racial minority and walking down the street. The New York Times editorial board has called on the Justice Department to investigate abuses of stop and frisk this year.

I agree. We have a black (he says to never to call him an AA as he is an American, period) member of our "group" was stopped for WWB in a predominately white neighborhood.

WWB equals Walking While Black. Never mind he is retired, highly decorated Marine, likes classical music (we kid him about that), is a lector in his church and is a pussycat he committed the alleged crime of being black. He is in his late 50s/early 60's and walks for exercise and to check out other peoples houses for landscaping techniques/tips. After his neighborhood where pretty much everyone knows him, he crossed over the (4) lane city street to the next neighborhood and the cops were called for a "suspicious man" in the neighborhood. After the police officer arrived and got "the speech" they left. I can't imagine what is like to live like that.

NAVYBLUE

 

[NAVYBLUE]

NAVYBLUE--thanks so much for posting best practices for deflecting annoying probes from LEOs. I suspect that the canned responses, spoken with confidence, would lead 99% of LEOs to profile the speaker as a civil libertarian who's unlikely to be in possession of contraband.

The requirement or non-requirement to state a name is interesting to me. Has this been codified by the Supreme Court or does this requirement vary state-by-state?

In the ruling Amanda referred to the key thing is:

And no reasonable suspicion is NOT easy to obtain.

RAS is obtainable when under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

The classic example is a stop for speeding. Get stopped, provide paperwork, wait for officer to make a decision, then proceed. That is why most officers ask you, "Do you know why I stopped you?" Your answer is NO. They tell you the "alleged crime committed" and thus ask for paperwork and then ticket/no ticket. Ticket. Pay it or fight.

The other is the DUI check points. Go to opencarry. org. Click on map. Click on Nevada. Click on forums. In there you can find info about a "group" (I am not a member) who goes to DUI check points, protests, warns others prior to the stop and measures to make sure all the signs are within the distance the law requires. Some of the group go through the check points with the window open about (2) inches and give "the speech"

1. This conversation is not consensual.

2. What is your RAS ?

3. Am I free to go ?

4. Repeat again and again until the officer says "You are free to go"

The groups position is the LEOs are making stops and there is no RAS. Their research through county records show more DUI people are caught from LEOs seeing people driving erratically and too slow for condition/speed limit thus providing RAS and getting them out of vehicle to do the sobriety tests. The small number of confirmed DUIs that come out of DUI stops in Clark County Nevada in their opinion doesn't justify the man power/money utilized and could be better spent trying to prevent violent crimes. I am neutral on the subject which is RARE for me. I see both sides of the argument.

NAVYBLUE

 

[Peter KG6LSE]

Actually Amtrak can impose any conditions it wishes upon you for travel, within reason. No one is forcing you to buy the ticket, therefore Amtrak can impose any rules it sees fit. You then have the choice to either buy the ticket and obey or find another way to travel.

And this can easily be seen by the rule that if one fails to submit to a search by law enforcement, then one will receive a refund of one's ticket(s) and will not be permitted to travel on Amtrak.

at least Amtrak Offers a refund if you dont consent ...

the clowns at the airport can arrest and fine you for 10 Grand for not bending over and saying YES at a checkpoint .....

EG you dont consent to a Xray and a patdown . and thus you cant pass go .. and YOU want to leave . if you ask for your stuf to leave to the non secure zone they can stop you and . make your life Hell /.

this of ALL laws needs to change ........ you have the rigth to not fly and NOT be touched ......... but it needs not be a fine or jail .. the Tix are the airlines problem . so those I can seenot being refunded ...

 

[NAVYBLUE]

Actually Amtrak can impose any conditions it wishes upon you for travel, within reason. No one is forcing you to buy the ticket, therefore Amtrak can impose any rules it sees fit. You then have the choice to either buy the ticket and obey or find another way to travel.

And this can easily be seen by the rule that if one fails to submit to a search by law enforcement, then one will receive a refund of one's ticket(s) and will not be permitted to travel on Amtrak.

at least Amtrak Offers a refund if you dont consent ...

the clowns at the airport can arrest and fine you for 10 Grand for not bending over and saying YES at a checkpoint .....

EG you dont consent to a Xray and a patdown . and thus you cant pass go .. and YOU want to leave . if you ask for your stuf to leave to the non secure zone they can stop you and . make your life Hell /.

this of ALL laws needs to change ........ you have the rigth to not fly and NOT be touched ......... but it needs not be a fine or jail .. the Tix are the airlines problem . so those I can seenot being refunded ...

Amtrak officers are graduates of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. TSA "Officers" are NOT graduates of anything except maybe high school although you may have some senior types that were former LEOs that attended FLETC or a state police mini-academy, but I think they give them the TSA people the "officer" title to keep "us" in line like they are "real" LEO's.

NAVYBLUE