Comments on: "You Have the Right NOT to Remain…" http://www.kipesquire.net/2007/04/you-have-the-right-not-to-remain/ A Stitch in Time Saves Nine ... But Haste Makes Waste Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:02:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: doinkicarus http://www.kipesquire.net/2007/04/you-have-the-right-not-to-remain/comment-page-1/#comment-4695 doinkicarus Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:36:31 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=3178#comment-4695 for sure - kind of like how alot of people are under the impression that denying a request to search one's vehicle is indicative of guilt, it's the "If you didn't do anything wrong, what have you got to hide?" argument. for sure – kind of like how alot of people are under the impression that denying a request to search one's vehicle is indicative of guilt, it's the "If you didn't do anything wrong, what have you got to hide?" argument.

]]> By: KipEsquire http://www.kipesquire.net/2007/04/you-have-the-right-not-to-remain/comment-page-1/#comment-4694 KipEsquire Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:06:11 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=3178#comment-4694 I can easily see police making the argument that even asking whether one can leave is reasonable suspicion to detain, sort of like how merely "running when you see a cop" can by itself be considered probable cause. I can easily see police making the argument that even asking whether one can leave is reasonable suspicion to detain, sort of like how merely "running when you see a cop" can by itself be considered probable cause.

]]> By: doinkicarus http://www.kipesquire.net/2007/04/you-have-the-right-not-to-remain/comment-page-1/#comment-4693 doinkicarus Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:47:10 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=3178#comment-4693 Although I fully agree with your analysis, isn't generally accepted that you can't plead ignorance as an affirmative defense? e.g., You can't argue that you didn't know an activity was illegal - even if you actually *didn't know* it was illegal. <BR /> <BR />So, if you're expected to know what's illegal, aren't you also expected to know what is legal? <BR /> <BR />Although I've seen thousands of episodes of "Cops," and not once have I seen them tell a passenger s/he is free to go, unless and until that passenger is usually searched and questioned. That the officer(s), by word or action, appear to deny the "right" of the passenger to leave is the problem. At what point does it become an estoppel issue, that is, the officer forfeits the right to argue the passenger was free to go, because his words/actions would reasonably be interpreted to the contrary? <BR /> <BR /> Acting in such a manner ought to Although I fully agree with your analysis, isn't generally accepted that you can't plead ignorance as an affirmative defense? e.g., You can't argue that you didn't know an activity was illegal – even if you actually *didn't know* it was illegal.

So, if you're expected to know what's illegal, aren't you also expected to know what is legal?

Although I've seen thousands of episodes of "Cops," and not once have I seen them tell a passenger s/he is free to go, unless and until that passenger is usually searched and questioned. That the officer(s), by word or action, appear to deny the "right" of the passenger to leave is the problem. At what point does it become an estoppel issue, that is, the officer forfeits the right to argue the passenger was free to go, because his words/actions would reasonably be interpreted to the contrary?

Acting in such a manner ought to

]]>