Check points require warrants, and must be performed in a reasonable manner that does not unduly interfere or hinder. Michigan case, name escapes me on my fourth glass of wine. In legal terms, the scope must be carefully circumscribed to further the legitimate administrative purpose. (Sounds dirty, doesn’t it? Circumscribe this!)
Just say no. Am I under arrest? Can I go now? Get a fuckin’ warrant. Friends don’t let friends consent to police intrusions.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, W Reid White
There are, but I must not be making myself clear. I’m talking check-point > kind of routine stops. NC Highway Patrol can – and do whenever they wish – > put a squad car on either side of the road, stop all traffic in both > directions, and perform license checks. It’s been litigated. They won (in > NC, at least).
Happy Trails, > Reid
_____
From: Yahoo Canyons Group [mailto:Yahoo Canyons Group] On Behalf Of > bruce silliman > Sent: Friday, 04 April 2008 19.45 > To: Yahoo Canyons Group
Subject: RE: [from Canyons Group] Re: A Zion Ranger Encounter
> Reid,
It is my understanding that there are no such animals – ‘routine traffic > stops’. I think there must be some reason to do so i.e. tail light or turn > signal inop, speeding, driving erratically, etc.
Just because a policeman wants to pull you over I do not believe that it is > permissible. There must be reason.
Now if you are talking about a checkpoint on New Year’s Eve or a Friday > night safety check to ensure people are wearing their seatbelts, that I > believe is perfectly within the rights of the police department.
I may be off base so someone witht the legal knowledge join in.
bruce from bryce
To: canyons@yahoogroups
Hi Rob,Very enlightening re: NPS encounters, but it seems there’s a > missingpart. Or are you saying that routine traffic stops – where officers > checkdrivers’ licenses – are, in fact, not legal? They certainly have > no’reasonable suspicion’ of anything under those circumstances.Happy > Trails,Reid_____ From: canyons@yahoogroups >
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv? s=97359714/grpId=1898823/grpspId=1705066005/msgId > =44194/stime=1207322629/nc1=4767086/nc2=4507179/nc3=4763762
com/serv? s=97359714/grpId=1898823/grpspId=1705066005/msgId=44194/stime=12073 > 22629/nc1=4767086/nc2=4507179/nc3=4763762> [Non-text portions of this > message have been removed]
________ > Get in touch in an instant. Get Windows Live Messenger now. > http://www.windowsl
<http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html? ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refres > h_getintouch_042008
ive.com/messenger/overview.html? ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_getintouch_042008
> >
beadysee
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Tom Jones” wrote: > Do not mischaracterize. Other than Wade, I have not heard anyone call > for removing the permit system entirely.
I did. Wrote several letters to that effect, in fact.
Serves no purpose for day use.
Should be the same as climbing in Zion. And the Tetons too, now (the GTNP came to that conclusion as well).
-Brian in SLC
restrac2000
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Tom Jones” wrote: > PLEASE –
> Do not mischaracterize. Other than Wade, I have not heard anyone call > for removing the permit system entirely. > My ‘standard proposal’, which I believe has general agreement among us > radicals, is to reduce the CURRENT permit system to the canyons that > require management (Subway, Narrows, Mystery… maybe a few others) > and put in place a simpler, trailhead permit with no quotas (until a > need is demonstrated) for all other canyons.
Tom >
No intention to mis-characterize the “radicals” as you call yourselves (I don’t believe I ever hinted at such terminology??)…I associate the term “permit system” with qoutas…must sincerely learn to articulate that better…maybe it would have been better to restate in simpler terms…my views (of the permit system) are widely different then the mainstream vocalizations of this group. The narrower description was obviously inaccurate.
I do find the appeal for better characterization fairly ironic, Tom. I consider your interactions on this forum fairly notorious for antagonistic, tongue-in-cheek, gross exaggerations of statements. Nonetheless the tendency to twist names in fairly inflammatory manners when the person holds views other than yours. Or the tendency for the President (not sure of correct term there) of the ZCC to vocalize such gross generalizations/interpretations about the NPS on an open forum such as this. Yet, the irony does not negate the constructive feedback. Much obliged.
Phillip
Tom Jones
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “restrac2000” wrote:
I agree on the changes that need to be made to the system, though I > disagree with the formal idea of removing the permit system entirely > (The latter being a firmly established difference between myself and > many vocal members of this group).
PLEASE –
Do not mischaracterize. Other than Wade, I have not heard anyone call for removing the permit system entirely.
My ‘standard proposal’, which I believe has general agreement among us radicals, is to reduce the CURRENT permit system to the canyons that require management (Subway, Narrows, Mystery… maybe a few others) and put in place a simpler, trailhead permit with no quotas (until a need is demonstrated) for all other canyons.
Tom
j b
I have never been fortunate enough to take a long 7-14 day canyon trip like this. My Zion trips fall firmly into the 2-3 day category you mentioned in a previous post, so in this sense at least perhaps I am more “normal” than those to whom you are alluding.
So let me be clear: I can only consider permits a BIG hassle, that with the exception of perhaps 2-3 canyons, provide absolutely no benefits whatsoever to me. In my view, the system does not impart any significant protection to soil, flora, or fauna. In my case, someone always knows my destination, so permits supply no margin of safety in terms of directing the NPS where to look if I’m overdue. You have explained that solitude is very important to you in the backcountry (although I confess to being a little stumped as to what a “valid” wilderness experience consists of)–fair enough. I know others like that, and for those relatively rare cases when a non-popular canyon maxes out its quota, perhaps permits benefit you. But for “normal” old me, I enjoy seeing other people in the backcountry. In fact I can’t think of a single time when the presence of other recreators marred a backcountry experience. (Front country is another matter.) Acquiring permits is an expensive waste of my time, and returns nothing on my investment as far as I can see. I can imagine only two exceptions: 1)if permit fees help fund the SAR team; and 2)if permits shield the park from expensive liability lawsuits whose cost must of course be borne by the taxpayer. Even in these cases I would still feel that the system needs drastic overhaul.
Jeff
—– Original Message —- The system should manage for the “norm,” which doesn’t include 7-14 day trips in Zion’s canyons. Not that they shouldn’t make allowances and be malleable to that reality, which I think we are gradually seeing more of. But the NPS is limited by time, money, and personnel and I think those of us outside the “norm” should realize those allowances will take a while. I for one would rather see the system meet the needs of the “norm” (i.e. the majority) then mine specifically, seems more just to me.
__________________________________ You rock. That’s why Blockbuster’s offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
restrac2000
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “gajslk” wrote:
> Easy, Cobra. Philip appears to want to rehash the whole poaching > thread. This is quite odd, since halfway through said thread he > wanted certain folks to stop mentioning the topic at all, lest those > with little self-control ruin his party.
I am curious how people read intention from such simple, direct statements. I was challenged by that when I read Tom’s interpretation of the Ranger’s “Can I see your permit” as “You are a liar.” This is something I am challenged by.
I have reread my thread and see know just reason for your interpretation mentioned above. No references to said thread. Topic mentioned was “waiting in line=safety issue,” nothing to do with illegal descents. If I was rehashing any topic it was my stubborn tendency to engage the idea that we are responsible for ourselves in such rigid environments. That we must constantly analyze risk personally and unfortunately remain flexible in a rigid environment. That “the waiting in line risk” is best analyzed as the overall risk we mitigate in this sport on a day to day basis. I actually think I managed to present this in a fair, respectful manner. I am vulnerable to constructive observations/feedback on this topic. What I will not stand vulnerable to is the antagonism of such threads as listed above. We are a community that has varying opinions, that is obvious, there is no evidence that we benefit from belittling any of those opinions (even the minority that I appear to be a voice of).
> Personally, I hope that the ranger from hell that caused this thread > to be started gets hold of Philips’ chain. I’d pay to watch. > Gordon >
Why the antagonism and malice? Serious question…
Another rehashed theme…the tendency to isolate and antagonize controversial opinions. I have been part of that process, watched many others on this forum succumb. Though this does not invalidate the productive dialog that can come from these threads I do believe it erodes at some of the progress we make as a community. Interesting behavior that I believe has little constructive benefit, and likely negative repercussions to any cause it is associated with. IMHO.
Phillip
restrac2000
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “adkramoo” wrote:
> made it dicey, we should remain flexible and change the plan and > abandon the permit and go and get another one and find something else > to do. That is correct. But i suspect that in this instance, the > system applies more than subtle pressure to “stay on program” because > of the hoops, time and expense of getting positioned in the first > place. Make it harder to make a change? Ummm. >
I agree on the changes that need to be made to the system, though I disagree with the formal idea of removing the permit system entirely (The latter being a firmly established difference between myself and many vocal members of this group). To the root of the safety issue I do believe the NPS needs to constantly analyze recreational behavior in analyzing the merits of their management systems. Does the permit system increase risk for canyoneers? I don’t have an objective means to validate or dismiss that idea, hence my aforementioned conundrum.
The intention of the post was not to dismiss the validity of the safety concept, but to mention that until the system changes we may have a responsibility of discussing the merit of personal accountability. IF a problem exists we are confronted with managing it to the best of our abilities, i.e. remaining flexible until the system changes. That doesn’t dismiss the call to arms about the system…just that we may want to manage the situation personally in the interim.
I also think it is fair to view the system from the perspective of the average canyoneer, not those of us who fall way outside the norm. I fall outside the norm for my preferences of social encounters in the backcountry and I have had to confront how that is managed by the NPS. But I must recognize that the NPS doesn’t need to manage for my individual preferences and that there is some validity to the VERP-based arguments made about this fact in the community. But I think the same must be said of those of you who recreate to such a large degree. The system should manage for the “norm,” which doesn’t include 7-14 day trips in Zion’s canyons. Not that they shouldn’t make allowances and be malleable to that reality, which I think we are gradually seeing more of. But the NPS is limited by time, money, and personnel and I think those of us outside the “norm” should realize those allowances will take a while. I for one would rather see the system meet the needs of the “norm” (i.e. the majority) then mine specifically, seems more just to me.
This is a complex subject and I obviously don’t do it justice in one paragraph…
Phillip
Rob Heineman
Correct. The standard for an investigative detention is reasonable articulable suspicion. Specific, articulable facts that would lead a person of reasonable caution to suspect something illegal is going on. More than a hunch. But not much more. For an arrest, probable cause. Which is a bit or so more than reasonable suspicion. Angels on the head of a pin – what appellate judges are good at. Justice Potter hit the nail on the head – “I know it when I see it.” You were only an angel or two off.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Courtney” wrote:
I don’t dislike being wrong. It’s grounding. But perhaps I’m > misunderstanding…
On a “typical” traffic stop (headlight out, expired license plate, > speeding, running a red light), the standard is not probable cause but > only reasonable suspicion?
CP
> — In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Rob Heineman” wrote:
Sorry Courtney, you are wrong. Reasonable suspicion permits police to
stop and question under all circumstances. Probable cause is required
for a custodial arrest (also for a search warrant, or a bindover to
district court for further proceedings after felony charges have been
filed.) Custodial arrest is also referred to in Utah as a level III
encounter, the lead court decision being State v. Dieter. At least
that’s the case I cited in the numerous briefs concerning fourth
amendment issues I filed in the Utah Supreme Court and the Utah Court
of Appeals. An investigative detention, as discussed prominently in
the United States Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio, requires only
reasonable suspicion. Specifically, in the Terry case, reasonable
suspicion that the suspect was armed with a dangerous weapon,
warranting a protective pat down, now universally known as a “Terry
frisk.” Thus, to pull over a driver on SUSPICION of drunk driving, an
officer only has to have reasonable suspicion that the driver is
drunk. At that point, the constitution requires that the officer take
action to confirm or dispel the suspicion in an expedient
fashion. “You’re weaving in the road. Have you been drinking?” “No,
officer. Some crappy music came on the radio, and I was looking for my
Pink Floyd CD.” “Sir, be careful, and maybe you should pull over if
you need to search for a CD. Good day.” To haul you off to jail,
probable cause is required.
Rob Heineman, Reg. No. 38320, Deputy Colorado Defender 2007- current
previously Felony Trial Attorney, Salt Lake Legal Defender Association
1999-2006
previously Appellate Attorney, Salt Lake Legal Defender Association
1992-1999
All opinions expressed are those of the author alone. Associations
listed for identification purposes only.
PS Courtney, you are still way smarter than the average prosecutor.
PPS Unless you are a judge, arguing with a public defender is
generally frustrating and a waste of time. If you are a judge, being
last lets you win, even though you are likely wrong. HAVING A BADGE
DOES NOT MAKE YOU RIGHT.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Courtney” wrote:
“When a cop pulls you over, they (typically) do so after they have
> cause to believe (“reasonable suspicion” in legal terms) you have
> committed some violation of the law.”
For the sake of accuracy and clarification, I want to point out that
> this statement is not entirely true. Although “reasonable suspicion”
> is sufficient cause for a police officer to stop you under certain
> circumstances, probable cause is the typical standard.
CP
gajslk
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “adkramoo” wrote:
Calm myself down! Calm myself down! Calm my…count to 10…maybe 25 > instead….Nope, I’m still shaking! > Breathe, breathe, breathe. Ahhhhhh. Better…But not good. How to > approach? OK, I’ll try this way….. > Easy, Cobra. Philip appears to want to rehash the whole poaching thread. This is quite odd, since halfway through said thread he wanted certain folks to stop mentioning the topic at all, lest those with little self-control ruin his party.
This is giving me some great ideas – how about a poachers guide to Zion? Canyons could be given ratings regarding the probability of getting caught. Pine Creek between 9am and 5pm in June could be our standard of reference. Tom, it seems like a really useful addition to the next revision of your book!
Another great idea for a Springdale local – a line standing service. For a fee, said local would stand in line, pull the permit, and turn it over to the contracting party later that night.
How about a climbing guide to Zion slots? This guide would detail a technical climb in every drainage in Zion that would require a descent through that drainage as the safest way down. Having a documented climb in the drainage would make challenging a ticket far easier and could well prevent a ticket in the first place.
Personally, I hope that the ranger from hell that caused this thread to be started gets hold of Philips’ chain. I’d pay to watch.
Gordon
Steven Jackson
I concur Ram having been one of the groups you were with last year. We took our young men’s group to zions last year and the logistics of a 6 day trip was horrendous for 1 reason and 1 reason alone the permit system. Which based on the new plan has only gotten worse.
adkramoo adkramoo@aol.com> wrote: — In Yahoo Canyons Group, “restrac2000” wrote: If you are getting such a late > start why not bag the long canyon and go for something shorter? > Attachment to outcomes can be just as dangerous, i.e. the commitment > heuristic. In such a situation I think it is as important to confront > the need to achieve a rigid goal as it is to provide constructive > feedback to the permit system. There are many other situation in > which we must remain flexible because of rigid regulations (though I > think we approach recreation/vacation with a different mindset because > of the desired outcomes). > Phillip
Calm myself down! Calm myself down! Calm my…count to 10…maybe 25 instead….Nope, I’m still shaking! Breathe, breathe, breathe. Ahhhhhh. Better…But not good. How to approach? OK, I’ll try this way…..
Hi Phillip. Hope all is well and your getting out. Your point about not being rigid with ones plans is critically important and sage advice. I think of the Kolob disaster as the worst/best example of an inability to do so. Very important.
But with what you suggest about about avoiding late starts from the permit line (Breathe again!) may be practical if you are going to do only one canyon in a row and have the time to get the permit the day before. What if you want to do two canyons on successive days that take longer than the permit center is open? What then? (sorry, no hotel, no laptop and camped 30 minutes away near the canyon)Forget about the time traveling to the line from wherever and the time to get to the canyon. Why don’t we just take these canyons off line then!! If they take too long to do with a permit, just drop them from the data base. That would be safe. After all we must maintain the privilege of standing (Calm down, calm down) on line….OK, I lost it a little there. I will step back from this absurd system….errr, I meant statement.
Maybe I should just offer a solution if one wants to….the horror…. get several days of exercise and canyoneering in, in a row? Last year we did a Full Rt Fork, A full Left Fork, A full Imlay and 2 canyons, one the same distance, the other way longer, in a 5 day period. Shortest day was 11 hours. How did we work this magic, with the evil permit system conspiring to steal the cool early hours of light from us and leave us not enough daylight to finish??? Well…..we did each of these canyons with a different group. Members of the group for the next days canyon got the permits. You have any idea how much planning that required? To coordinate? And the weather held. And no one got a pulled muscle or got sick. A miracle? So we didn’t have to change our plan. If the weather or a partners condition made it dicey, we should remain flexible and change the plan and abandon the permit and go and get another one and find something else to do. That is correct. But i suspect that in this instance, the system applies more than subtle pressure to “stay on program” because of the hoops, time and expense of getting positioned in the first place. Make it harder to make a change? Ummm.
I apologize for this disjointed mess of a post. I wasn’t entirely in control of my emotions. Can’t we see that the damn system is what is causing the late start? And that increases the risk. Ram
You rock. That’s why Blockbuster’s offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
adkramoo
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “restrac2000” wrote: If you are getting such a late > start why not bag the long canyon and go for something shorter? > Attachment to outcomes can be just as dangerous, i.e. the commitment > heuristic. In such a situation I think it is as important to confront > the need to achieve a rigid goal as it is to provide constructive > feedback to the permit system. There are many other situation in > which we must remain flexible because of rigid regulations (though I > think we approach recreation/vacation with a different mindset because > of the desired outcomes). > Phillip
Calm myself down! Calm myself down! Calm my…count to 10…maybe 25 instead….Nope, I’m still shaking! Breathe, breathe, breathe. Ahhhhhh. Better…But not good. How to approach? OK, I’ll try this way…..
Hi Phillip. Hope all is well and your getting out. Your point about not being rigid with ones plans is critically important and sage advice. I think of the Kolob disaster as the worst/best example of an inability to do so. Very important.
But with what you suggest about about avoiding late starts from the permit line (Breathe again!) may be practical if you are going to do only one canyon in a row and have the time to get the permit the day before. What if you want to do two canyons on successive days that take longer than the permit center is open? What then? (sorry, no hotel, no laptop and camped 30 minutes away near the canyon)Forget about the time traveling to the line from wherever and the time to get to the canyon. Why don’t we just take these canyons off line then!! If they take too long to do with a permit, just drop them from the data base. That would be safe. After all we must maintain the privilege of standing (Calm down, calm down) on line….OK, I lost it a little there. I will step back from this absurd system….errr, I meant statement.
Maybe I should just offer a solution if one wants to….the horror…. get several days of exercise and canyoneering in, in a row? Last year we did a Full Rt Fork, A full Left Fork, A full Imlay and 2 canyons, one the same distance, the other way longer, in a 5 day period. Shortest day was 11 hours. How did we work this magic, with the evil permit system conspiring to steal the cool early hours of light from us and leave us not enough daylight to finish??? Well…..we did each of these canyons with a different group. Members of the group for the next days canyon got the permits. You have any idea how much planning that required? To coordinate? And the weather held. And no one got a pulled muscle or got sick. A miracle? So we didn’t have to change our plan. If the weather or a partners condition made it dicey, we should remain flexible and change the plan and abandon the permit and go and get another one and find something else to do. That is correct. But i suspect that in this instance, the system applies more than subtle pressure to “stay on program” because of the hoops, time and expense of getting positioned in the first place. Make it harder to make a change? Ummm.
I apologize for this disjointed mess of a post. I wasn’t entirely in control of my emotions. Can’t we see that the damn system is what is causing the late start? And that increases the risk. Ram
restrac2000
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Bo” wrote:
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “beadysee” wrote:
My point is kind of that the permit system doesn’t do anything with
regard to safety. In fact, my bet is that its probably a secondary
cause of several safety related issues. One being a late start after > having to stand in line. Etc.
Point well taken! I must agree that the permit system could somehow be > much better. As far as rescue because of this flaw? I’m not totally > sure? I will have to research this. I know of folks that needed rescue > after spending the night in a canyon, but don’t think it was caused by > getting a late start because of waiting in line? I think it was because > they underestimated time necessary and problems during the course of > their hike? >
I have always found the “waiting in line” idea an interesting conundrum.
Definitely agree that the system could be better, like having later hours, accessing permits farther ahead of time, etc. But then there is the personal accountability side. If you are getting such a late start why not bag the long canyon and go for something shorter? Attachment to outcomes can be just as dangerous, i.e. the commitment heuristic. In such a situation I think it is as important to confront the need to achieve a rigid goal as it is to provide constructive feedback to the permit system. There are many other situation in which we must remain flexible because of rigid regulations (though I think we approach recreation/vacation with a different mindset because of the desired outcomes).
Phillip
Courtney
I don’t dislike being wrong. It’s grounding. But perhaps I’m misunderstanding…
On a “typical” traffic stop (headlight out, expired license plate, speeding, running a red light), the standard is not probable cause but only reasonable suspicion?
CP
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Rob Heineman” wrote:
Sorry Courtney, you are wrong. Reasonable suspicion permits police to > stop and question under all circumstances. Probable cause is required > for a custodial arrest (also for a search warrant, or a bindover to > district court for further proceedings after felony charges have been > filed.) Custodial arrest is also referred to in Utah as a level III > encounter, the lead court decision being State v. Dieter. At least > that’s the case I cited in the numerous briefs concerning fourth > amendment issues I filed in the Utah Supreme Court and the Utah Court > of Appeals. An investigative detention, as discussed prominently in > the United States Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio, requires only > reasonable suspicion. Specifically, in the Terry case, reasonable > suspicion that the suspect was armed with a dangerous weapon, > warranting a protective pat down, now universally known as a “Terry > frisk.” Thus, to pull over a driver on SUSPICION of drunk driving, an > officer only has to have reasonable suspicion that the driver is > drunk. At that point, the constitution requires that the officer take > action to confirm or dispel the suspicion in an expedient > fashion. “You’re weaving in the road. Have you been drinking?” “No, > officer. Some crappy music came on the radio, and I was looking for my > Pink Floyd CD.” “Sir, be careful, and maybe you should pull over if > you need to search for a CD. Good day.” To haul you off to jail, > probable cause is required.
Rob Heineman, Reg. No. 38320, Deputy Colorado Defender 2007- current > previously Felony Trial Attorney, Salt Lake Legal Defender Association > 1999-2006 > previously Appellate Attorney, Salt Lake Legal Defender Association > 1992-1999 > All opinions expressed are those of the author alone. Associations > listed for identification purposes only.
PS Courtney, you are still way smarter than the average prosecutor. > PPS Unless you are a judge, arguing with a public defender is > generally frustrating and a waste of time. If you are a judge, being > last lets you win, even though you are likely wrong. HAVING A BADGE > DOES NOT MAKE YOU RIGHT.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Courtney” wrote:
“When a cop pulls you over, they (typically) do so after they have
cause to believe (“reasonable suspicion” in legal terms) you have
committed some violation of the law.”
For the sake of accuracy and clarification, I want to point out that
this statement is not entirely true. Although “reasonable suspicion”
is sufficient cause for a police officer to stop you under certain
circumstances, probable cause is the typical standard.
CP
>
Rob Heineman
Couple reasons. One, your average criminal ain’t that bright. But the primary reason is that police don’t take no for an answer. Personal experience – bachelor party for a public defender, police show up requesting permission to search to verify there were no hookers or keg beer on the premises. 45 minutes later, they were still trying to get consent. Asking each person who came out, looking for any excuse. I said, “GOT A FUCKIN’ WARRANT? GUESS YOU’RE JUST FLAPPING IN THE BREEZE!” Didn’t deter them in the slightest. Finally left after about an hour and a quarter.
When joe citizen says no to a cop, the cop goes into, “Well, we can do this the easy way or the hard way” (Hard way works for me. Get a warrant) and all kinds of other nonsense. “If you don’t have anything illegal, what are you hiding?” (Nothing, I just hate asshole pigs like you) “You’re impeding my investigation.” (Damn straight. Get a warrant.) Etc., etc., etc.
Stick to the script:
I am DONE talking to you. Am I under arrest? Illegal detention began at XX:XX. I’m calling my lawyer right now. Name and badge number, sir. NOW. Handcuff me or I’m leaving right now. Show me the warrant or get out of my way. (DON’T NASWER ANY MORE OR THEIR QUESTIONS – STICK TO CAN I GO. WHAT AM I ARRESTED FOR.)
Dialing 911 and saying some guy claiming to be a cop is detaining me but won’t say why or arrest me can make things interesting. Be careful not to be physically threatening, be sure to deny any intention of breaking the law, be clear you are merely asserting your rights and the cop is violating the constitution. Videotaping will help. But really piss off the cop.
Takes some hutzpah to pull off. But it can be super fun. But they aren’t going to just go away.
Rob
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, bruce silliman wrote:
> Hey Rob – a question
Why do criminals agree to a search of their vehicles when they are pulled over for a busted tail light knowing that the police will find illegal stuff in the car?
No, there is no punchline to this. I’ve heard it happening all the time. Maybe they don’t know they can say ‘no’.
bruce from bryce
> To: canyons@…: heineman@…: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 02:12:46 +0000Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: A Zion Ranger Encounter
> Check points require warrants, and must be performed in a reasonable manner that does not unduly interfere or hinder. Michigan case, name escapes me on my fourth glass of wine. In legal terms, the scope must be carefully circumscribed to further the legitimate administrative purpose. (Sounds dirty, doesn’t it? Circumscribe this!) Just say no. Am I under arrest? Can I go now? Get a fuckin’ warrant. Friends don’t let friends consent to police intrusions.— In Yahoo Canyons Group, W Reid White wrote:>> There are, but I must not be making myself clear. I’m talking check- point> kind of routine stops. NC Highway Patrol can – and do whenever they wish -> put a squad car on either side of the road, stop all traffic in both> directions, and perform license checks. It’s been litigated. They won (in> NC, at least).
Happy Trails,> Reid
_____
From: Yahoo Canyons Group [mailto:Yahoo Canyons Group] On Behalf Of> bruce silliman> Sent: Friday, 04 April 2008 19.45> To: Yahoo Canyons Group> Subject: RE: [from Canyons Group] Re: A Zion Ranger Encounter
> Reid,
It is my understanding that there are no such animals – ‘routine traffic> stops’. I think there must be some reason to do so i.e. tail light or turn> signal inop, speeding, driving erratically, etc.
Just because a policeman wants to pull you over I do not believe that it is> permissible. There must be reason.
Now if you are talking about a checkpoint on New Year’s Eve or a Friday> night safety check to ensure people are wearing their seatbelts, that I> believe is perfectly within the rights of the police department.
I may be off base so someone witht the legal knowledge join in.
bruce from bryce
To: canyons@yahoogroups .comFrom:> TarHeel.Canyoneer@ gmail.comDate:> Fri, 4 Apr 2008 18:09:40 -0400Subject: RE: [from Canyons Group] Re: A Zion> Ranger Encounter
Hi Rob,Very enlightening re: NPS encounters, but it seems there’s a> missingpart. Or are you saying that routine traffic stops – where officers> checkdrivers’ licenses – are, in fact, not legal? They certainly have> no’reasonable suspicion’ of anything under those circumstances.Happy> Trails,Reid_____ From: canyons@yahoogroups> .com [mailto:canyons@yahoogroups> .com] On Behalf OfRob HeinemanSent:> Friday, 04 April 2008 11.20To: canyons@yahoogroups> .comSubject: [from Canyons Group]> Re: A Zion Ranger EncounterWrong. When a cop pulls you over, they> (typically) do so after they have cause to believe (“reasonable suspicion”> in legal terms) you have committed some violation of the law. The fourth> amendment allows this – commonly called a level II encounter. The fourth> amendment also always a cop to walk up and talk to you, and ask for> permission for anything legal. A level I encounter. You may refuse. The> first amendment permits you to say, “Fuck you. I don’t talk to pigs.” This> is not advised, but is entirely legal. It is likely to lead to an illegal> level III encounter (full custodial arrest).. =44194/stime=1207322629/nc1=4767086/nc2=4507179/nc3=4763762>> com/serv? s=97359714/grpId=1898823/grpspId=1705066005/msgId=44194/stime=12073> 22629/nc1=4767086/nc2=4507179/nc3=4763762> [Non-text portions of this> message have been removed]
________> Get in touch in an instant. Get Windows Live Messenger now.> http://www.windowsl> h_getintouch_042008>> ive.com/messenger/overview.html? ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_getintouch_042008
>
_______________ > Going green? See the top 12 foods to eat organic. > http://green.msn.com/galleries/photos/photos.aspx? gid=164&ocid=T003MSN51N1653A
>
Bo
> — In Yahoo Canyons Group, “beadysee” wrote: > My point is kind of that the permit system doesn’t do anything with > regard to safety. In fact, my bet is that its probably a secondary > cause of several safety related issues. One being a late start after having to stand in line. Etc.
Point well taken! I must agree that the permit system could somehow be much better. As far as rescue because of this flaw? I’m not totally sure? I will have to research this. I know of folks that needed rescue after spending the night in a canyon, but don’t think it was caused by getting a late start because of waiting in line? I think it was because they underestimated time necessary and problems during the course of their hike?
Bo
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “beadysee” wrote:
> Has their ever been a SAR in a canyon where a permit was required where > the folks didn’t have one?
> Bo, chime in!
You asked for it! [] Yes..I can think of 3 in the last 2 year’s (sort of).
First group had a permit for “Behunin”, but not for Heaps!
Second group had permit for Mystery, but not for Lower Echo! (not permittable)
Third…An elderly man finished his Senior Games activities and got a permit for the Subway. 24 hours overdue..up comes the red flag. He was located 600′ north of and above Das Boot on the steep slickrock slabs. Had he not had a permit….where do we even begin to look?
> My point is kind of that the permit system doesn’t do anything with > regard to safety. In fact, my bet is that its probably a secondary > cause of several safety related issues. One being a late start after > having to stand in line. Etc.
Au Contraire! Just had a very interesting training a few weeks back, “Search Management”. If someone ends up overdue, the knowledge gained by a “Permit” is invaluable. The permit information pretty much isolates the POA (probability of area). Once resources are thrown at the POA, the POD (probability of detection) increases. If the person isn’t found in his permitted area, then other POA’s are established. I won’t get into it, but TIME is a key factor in successful detection and rescue. The date of the written permit, the persons name is key to investigative tactics. What if the person has a medical condition? What if the person is ADD? What if the person just had an ugly divorce? What if the person is a fugitive and running from the law? What if the person has decided to flee life here and head to Australia? What if the person is 2 days from being dead? If we don’t know where he is…it’s pretty hard to figure out where to begin to look.
Any and all leads (including a permit) might just be the clue for a happy SAR!
-Brian in SLC
bruce silliman
Hey Rob – a question
Why do criminals agree to a search of their vehicles when they are pulled over for a busted tail light knowing that the police will find illegal stuff in the car?
No, there is no punchline to this. I’ve heard it happening all the time. Maybe they don’t know they can say ‘no’.
bruce from bryce
To: canyons@yahoogroups.comFrom: heineman@alum.mit.eduDate: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 02:12:46 +0000Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: A Zion Ranger Encounter
Check points require warrants, and must be performed in a reasonable manner that does not unduly interfere or hinder. Michigan case, name escapes me on my fourth glass of wine. In legal terms, the scope must be carefully circumscribed to further the legitimate administrative purpose. (Sounds dirty, doesn’t it? Circumscribe this!)Just say no. Am I under arrest? Can I go now? Get a fuckin’ warrant. Friends don’t let friends consent to police intrusions.— In Yahoo Canyons Group, W Reid White wrote:>> There are, but I must not be making myself clear. I’m talking check-point> kind of routine stops. NC Highway Patrol can – and do whenever they wish -> put a squad car on either side of the road, stop all traffic in both> directions, and perform license checks. It’s been litigated. They won (in> NC, at least).
Happy Trails,> Reid
_____
From: Yahoo Canyons Group [mailto:Yahoo Canyons Group] On Behalf Of> bruce silliman> Sent: Friday, 04 April 2008 19.45> To: Yahoo Canyons Group> Subject: RE: [from Canyons Group] Re: A Zion Ranger Encounter
> Reid,
It is my understanding that there are no such animals – ‘routine traffic> stops’. I think there must be some reason to do so i.e. tail light or turn> signal inop, speeding, driving erratically, etc.
Just because a policeman wants to pull you over I do not believe that it is> permissible. There must be reason.
Now if you are talking about a checkpoint on New Year’s Eve or a Friday> night safety check to ensure people are wearing their seatbelts, that I> believe is perfectly within the rights of the police department.
I may be off base so someone witht the legal knowledge join in.
bruce from bryce
To: canyons@yahoogroups .comFrom:> TarHeel.Canyoneer@ gmail.comDate:> Fri, 4 Apr 2008 18:09:40 -0400Subject: RE: [from Canyons Group] Re: A Zion> Ranger Encounter
Hi Rob,Very enlightening re: NPS encounters, but it seems there’s a> missingpart. Or are you saying that routine traffic stops – where officers> checkdrivers’ licenses – are, in fact, not legal? They certainly have> no’reasonable suspicion’ of anything under those circumstances.Happy> Trails,Reid_____ From: canyons@yahoogroups> .com [mailto:canyons@yahoogroups> .com] On Behalf OfRob HeinemanSent:> Friday, 04 April 2008 11.20To: canyons@yahoogroups> .comSubject: [from Canyons Group]> Re: A Zion Ranger EncounterWrong. When a cop pulls you over, they> (typically) do so after they have cause to believe (“reasonable suspicion”> in legal terms) you have committed some violation of the law. The fourth> amendment allows this – commonly called a level II encounter. The fourth> amendment also always a cop to walk up and talk to you, and ask for> permission for anything legal. A level I encounter. You may refuse. The> first amendment permits you to say, “Fuck you. I don’t talk to pigs.” This> is not advised, but is entirely legal. It is likely to lead to an illegal> level III encounter (full custodial arrest).. =44194/stime=1207322629/nc1=4767086/nc2=4507179/nc3=4763762>> com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=1898823/grpspId=1705066005/msgId=44194/stime=12073> 22629/nc1=4767086/nc2=4507179/nc3=4763762> [Non-text portions of this> message have been removed]
________> Get in touch in an instant. Get Windows Live Messenger now.> http://www.windowsl> h_getintouch_042008>> ive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_getintouch_042008
> >
_______________ Going green? See the top 12 foods to eat organic. http://green.msn.com/galleries/photos/photos.aspx?gid=164&ocid=T003MSN51N1653A
bruce silliman
I agree that those type of checks, where they are not singleling individuals but treating everyone the same, are perfectly legal.
bruce from bryce
To: canyons@yahoogroups.comFrom: TarHeel.Canyoneer@gmail.comDate: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 21:46:53 -0400Subject: RE: [from Canyons Group] Re: A Zion Ranger Encounter
There are, but I must not be making myself clear. I’m talking check-pointkind of routine stops. NC Highway Patrol can – and do whenever they wish -put a squad car on either side of the road, stop all traffic in bothdirections, and perform license checks. It’s been litigated. They won (inNC, at least).Happy Trails,Reid_____ From: Yahoo Canyons Group [mailto:Yahoo Canyons Group] On Behalf Ofbruce sillimanSent: Friday, 04 April 2008 19.45To: canyons@yahoogroups.comSubject: RE: [from Canyons Group] Re: A Zion Ranger EncounterReid, It is my understanding that there are no such animals – ‘routine trafficstops’. I think there must be some reason to do so i.e. tail light or turnsignal inop, speeding, driving erratically, etc.Just because a policeman wants to pull you over I do not believe that it ispermissible. There must be reason.Now if you are talking about a checkpoint on New Year’s Eve or a Fridaynight safety check to ensure people are wearing their seatbelts, that Ibelieve is perfectly within the rights of the police department.I may be off base so someone witht the legal knowledge join in.bruce from bryce To: canyons@yahoogroups .comFrom:TarHeel.Canyoneer@ gmail.comDate:Fri, 4 Apr 2008 18:09:40 -0400Subject: RE: [from Canyons Group] Re: A ZionRanger EncounterHi Rob,Very enlightening re: NPS encounters, but it seems there’s amissingpart. Or are you saying that routine traffic stops – where officerscheckdrivers’ licenses – are, in fact, not legal? They certainly haveno’reasonable suspicion’ of anything under those circumstances.HappyTrails,Reid_____ From: canyons@yahoogroups .com [mailto:canyons@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf OfRob HeinemanSent:Friday, 04 April 2008 11.20To: canyons@yahoogroups .comSubject: [from Canyons Group]Re: A Zion Ranger EncounterWrong. When a cop pulls you over, they(typically) do so after they have cause to believe (“reasonable suspicion”in legal terms) you have committed some violation of the law. The fourthamendment allows this – commonly called a level II encounter. The fourthamendment also always a cop to walk up and talk to you, and ask forpermission for anything legal. A level I encounter. You may refuse. Thefirst amendment permits you to say, “Fuck you. I don’t talk to pigs.” Thisis not advised, but is entirely legal. It is likely to lead to an illegallevel III encounter (full custodial arrest).. [Non-text portions of thismessage have been removed] ________Get in touch in an instant. Get Windows Live Messenger now.http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_getintouch_042008
_______________ More immediate than e-mail? Get instant access with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_instantaccess_042008
adkramoo
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Rob Heineman” wrote: I HAVE A DREAM > MLK, Jr. – Rest in peace. > America – we can do so much better. > I think I need a vacation – > Rob
You do. Thanx for the sentiment on this day. Vacation? I know a guy…..if you call this stuff a vacation? Write me.
Wow! I’m surprised by how many folks have had bad experiences. Then again…. are not adventure seekers just the kind to bristle at convention? Still I suspect that many folks are staying silent who feel differently than the pervasive mood expressed. No matter either way,. The NPS has room for improvement…as do we all, I guess. I fall into the “push off against authority” crowd too. Certainly some nerve has been struck. I contemplate why I fall to one side or the other….and I think back to my youth for answers….and a few come up. Why do I react like I do? A couple of examples for your amusement…..
My first job was at the morgue in the South Bronx. The cops used to come in to the place to hide. Played chess with them. Others talked of the affairs they were having. Others were selling dope. Most had language to make a sailor blush . Italians bashed the blacks. The Irish bashed the Italians and on and on. Kinda leaves an impression on a 17 year old (so does morgue work). Makes ya have a skeptical eye toward the whole collection of folks who choose a career that gives them sway over others. So, I fall into the category that doesn’t feel the love. I also learned early that there was no reason that these folks needed to know I feel that way. Kinda like spitting into the wind or raising the guy who holds the winning cards. Makes no sense. Steering clear is better…I do comment on the request for ID with the Golden Eagle…..”My, my, doesn’t the park have trust issues these day!” “This makes me feel dirty” or “I’m hurt, deeply hurt”….of course these folks don’t make the rules. Prefer to stay away.
Another time we were at the Jersey shore. Maybe 18 years old. Your not allowed to loiter so we went on an all night walk about. We were vigilant about being not vulnerable to any possible trouble. And sure enough a cop (Constable on Patrol) started in on us. We were perhaps just a tad smug, being so “clean.’ He said..”look wiseasses, I could go to your car and find some dope seeds and haul your butt in…..We assured him that he could not…..He opened his hand to reveal a handful of pot seeds. He said “you sure about that?” Stunned and unsettled we did the yes sir, no sir thing…..so I don’t wonder where my views come from. I hope I am not a prisoner of them……Good night……Did I ever tell you about the time….. in the bushes, next to the beach of Vera Cruz Mexico, when I woke up to a rifle in my nose and a Federale with bad teeth said with a big smile..”Mary Wanna?” Ramoo the Wiser
Rob Heineman
Cqareful what you ask for.
The high point in Utah was when an officer, I believe a Utah State Patrol cop, tesitified in a suppression hearing that a defendant was pulled over due to the “SNLH profile.” The defense attorney questioned what an “SNLH profile” was, and the trooper candidly responded:
“SPICS, NIGGERS, and LONG HAIRS.”
Our shared humanity can aspire to so much more . . . I HAVE A DREAM that someday the proportion of incarcerated African Americans is representative of the percentage of African Americans in society as a whole. That someday whites in Lousiana hanging nooses over a tree are treated as a more serious criminal justice concern than blacks in Lousiana protesting racism. 40 years — how far have we come?
MLK, Jr. – Rest in peace. America – we can do so much better.
I think I need a vacation –
Rob
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Tom Jones” wrote:
I’m hoping Rob with pipe in here…
but until then. Racial Profiling/traffic stops/”Driving while > Black” has been a subject of some focus in the ACLU the last few > years.
one link: http://www.flexyourrights.org/racial_profiling
> and another: http://www.aclu.org/police/index.html
> In Utah, they used to set up full traffic stops, where they stopped > every vehicle to take a closer look for illegal behaviour. They > often set up at the Ward House in Price, Utah, on holiday weekends, > because it is very difficult to cut around.
The Utah Supreme Court ruled such actions illegal. I remember the > ruling came out on a Friday, and I experienced my first full stop > that Sunday in Price. My friend got a ticket for ‘cracked > windshield’. The officer was unimpressed when I mentioned that > decision – I think they were just trying to get a few of em in, > before the ruling made its way into procedures.
Tom
> — In Yahoo Canyons Group, bruce silliman wrote:
Reid,
It is my understanding that there are no such animals – ‘routine > traffic stops’. I think there must be some reason to do so i.e. > tail light or turn signal inop, speeding, driving erratically, etc.
Just because a policeman wants to pull you over I do not believe > that it is permissible. There must be reason.
Now if you are talking about a checkpoint on New Year’s Eve or a > Friday night safety check to ensure people are wearing their > seatbelts, that I believe is perfectly within the rights of the > police department.
I may be off base so someone witht the legal knowledge join in.
bruce from bryce
To: canyons@: TarHeel.Canyoneer@: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 18:09:40 – > 0400Subject: RE: [from Canyons Group] Re: A Zion Ranger Encounter
Hi Rob,Very enlightening re: NPS encounters, but it seems there’s > a missingpart. Or are you saying that routine traffic stops – where > officers checkdrivers’ licenses – are, in fact, not legal? They > certainly have no’reasonable suspicion’ of anything under those > circumstances.Happy Trails,Reid_____ From: Yahoo Canyons Group
[mailto:Yahoo Canyons Group] On Behalf OfRob HeinemanSent: > Friday, 04 April 2008 11.20To: canyons@: [from Canyons Group] Re: > A Zion Ranger EncounterWrong. When a cop pulls you over, they > (typically) do so after they have cause to believe (“reasonable > suspicion” in legal terms) you have committed some violation of the > law. The fourth amendment allows this – commonly called a level II > encounter. The fourth amendment also always a cop to walk up and > talk to you, and ask for permission for anything legal. A level I > encounter. You may refuse. The first amendment permits you to > say, “Fuck you. I don’t talk to pigs.” This is not advised, but is > entirely legal. It is likely to lead to an illegal level III > encounter (full custodial arrest).. 629/nc1=4767086/nc2=4507179/nc3=4763762> [Non-text portions of this > message have been removed]
_______________
Get in touch in an instant. Get Windows Live Messenger now.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?
ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_getintouch_042008
>