One of those days...

[FrankDrebin]

You can't do it. The caller is unammed, and without corroboration, you can't stop someone even for a Terry stop based on the word of an unnamed informant. A description does not equal corroboration. I know because I lost a gun used in an armed robbery case (over 10 years ago) based on exactly the same scenario, and subsquently the justification for the arrest, and subsquent to that the whole case (minus the shooting part...I just added that for the drama!!). THAT'S what I was talking about when I said that in the real world, sometimes some cops gotta do what they gotta do to go home alive. I can't think of any cops who would just let the guys get in the van and drive away in a situation like that. I wasn't talking about something as fishy as seing someone outside a "known drug house" or "high crime area" and stopping and frisking them based on that.

As far as the least intrusive angle to your solution: You're going to leave three guys in the van who you think are armed while your partner goes inside to check out the store? You're going to stay out there without cover, 1 against 3 when you could have easily frisked them while your partner covered them with the shotgun? I say in for a penny, in for a pound. If you're going to stop them in the first place without grounds for reasonable suspicion, keep both cops out there and make them safe, and THEN check out the body in the store. He's not going to shoot anyone.

 

[Long Path]

You can always start up a "Knock 'n' talk" conversation: "Excuse me sir..."

Another way that would be completely unobjectionable would be to drop your partner off to check inside while your shadowed the van. When he's found the corroborating evidence, you call for backup for the felony stop.

Frankly, stopping without even ID'ing them while your partner checked inside would be pretty reasonable, and I think that it would fly with most courts. It's a least intrusive method.

I'm curious about what kind of call takes priority over a possible capital murder and robbery in progress? Time to call for more help. Got an animal control officer nearby? A constable serving papers? S.O. on the way to a transport? If you're in the boonies, you may be near other jurisdictions to ask for assistance. It's time to let your Dispatch know that more manpower is needed, ASAP. The investigate and tail is probably the best answer with regard to violating no rights and getting the goods without question.

If alone without a partner (what I'm most familiar with), the best way may be to simply follow the van while hollering for other units to check the store. If the van driver makes a traffic infraction, you've got P.C. for a stop. If he doesn't, he'll likely be driving slow, which will give you time. If he leaves your jurisdiction, you can still stay with him, and call for locals. [shrug] There are lots of answers. Some of them are wrong, some of them are sort of right.

 

[FrankDrebin]

You can always start up a "Knock 'n' talk" conversation: "Excuse me sir..."

He's not going to stick around, or if he does and he just killed somone, it's going to be to blow your head off. Assuming he doesn't and just drives away, you still don't have any reason to stop him. Besides, you think the guy just killed someone and you're going to walk right up to the van? Tell me honestly that if a run came out like that, you and just about every experienced cop you know wouldn't handle it like a felony stop from the beginning....Honestly, with a straight face. How many cops do you know who would disregard their adrenaline and say "Hmmmmm...we don't know who called this in because he was so scared he ran. That means we don't have reasonable suspicion, absent corroboration. We better not treat this like a felonly stop because we don't technically have reasonable suspicion. I'll stay behind the engine of our car, and YOU go up there and talk to them, but don't make them think that they're not free to leave!"


Personally, I MIGHT wait for a pretextual traffic stop, but then you just let him out of the reasonable security of the parking lot and now he's on the road and you risk a running gun battle and there's a lot better chance that bullets aren't going to aimed as well, increasing the chances shot bystanders. Because if he's shooting at me, I'm shooting back...Moving cars or no moving cars...AND there's 3 of them and only one of you if you let your partner out, two if you stuck together.

Frankly, stopping without even ID'ing them while your partner checked inside would be pretty reasonable, and I think that it would fly with most courts. It's a least intrusive method.

I don't think it's reasonable to split up when there are three guys who are presumably armed in the van, and you have no authority to make them stick around waiting for back-up even if it were available.

I'm curious about what kind of call takes priority over a possible capital murder and robbery in progress?

A couple things here. They're getting in the van NOW, and you think they're armed. How long are you going to wait for back-up while they formulate a plan on how use their AK-47's to take the two cops out who are following them. You won't even see it coming once they get into the van, especially if the windows are blacked out. (Check Shawn Bandy, Detroit PD)

http://www.detnews.com/2002/specialreport/0212/13/a11-30113.htm

This isn't posted to draw on any similarities other than the fact that there were armed guys, in a van, who were willing to shoot the police. I understand that they had probable cause to stop this van, and maybe could have done things differently, but that's not the point. The point in this example is that you can have the same kind of guys in a van, ready to kill you and not have reasonable suspicion enough to do what you need to do to stay alive based on a call from an anyonymous caller.

Also, you can't say for sure the call is for real considering how many BS calls for a felony in progress come out of the ghetto. They're not going to treat it the same way as they would in a town with more resources. True stories: I chased a car with my partner with a bunch of 15 year-olds in it. We chased for 10 minutes. No back-up. They crashed and bailed out. I chased after the kid with the AR-15 and my partner went after one of the other 3 who had a shotgun. I chased my guy through a neighborhood with no street lights. Called for back-up, none available and I didn't hear any sirens in the background. Called for a helicopter, none available. Called for the dogs, wouldn't authorize the overtime. The ONLY back-up I had for 20 minutes while I was looking for a guy with an assault rifle in a dark neighborhood was an off-duty cop from a neighboring city who just so happened to be in the neighborhood and saw me chasing.

Another one: Got a call to an armed robbery in progress of two old ladies in front of the church at 7:45 am. Shift change was at 7:45. We called it out when we spotted the guy, my partner chased him through the yards, and I circled the block and we caught him in about 10 minutes. Everyone else was already cleaning out their cars for off-duty. They figured it was another half-hour old run and that we'd never catch anyone so no one bothered to come out to help us.

Another one: Off-duty cop from another cith is robbed and shot at in a park. He comes 20 feet out of that city to use the payphone to call the police. He gets the 911 operator who tells them he has to call the other city (the pay phone caller ID shows him in city A when the crime took place 20 feet away in city B. He tries to explain, but the 911 operator is to freaking stupid to understand, and insists he has to call city A. City A police go into City B, look for the bad guy, all the while calling city B police to come help. City B shows up an hour later, after the bad guy has been in custody for a half hour!

In short, yes, around here, you can have a shooting run and not have any back-up for all intents and purposes until it's too late, or not needed anymore.

Not to mention the possibility prior to doing their armed robbery, the bad guys called in an "officer in trouble" for a location on the other side of the precinct. Where are all the cops going to be tied up for the next 10 minutes?

Time to call for more help. Got an animal control officer nearby? A constable serving papers? S.O. on the way to a transport?

Everyone's on different radios with different dispatches. That takes long minutes. They taught us in the academy that in the ghetto, for the worst run you can imagine, there's a good possibility that you're going to be "it", and have to handle it all by yourself, at least for 10 to 20 minutes, or until you see your OWN blood anyway.

I know what's constitutional, I know what's reasonable in most of the real world, and I know what's reasonable in certain other parts of the real world. Bottom line is, if you're one of the guys in that van, with most of the ghetto cops I know, you're not leaving that parking lot until the inside of the store is checked, OR until you're checked for weapons. I couldn't care less about the ID, I just want to know if there are guns under those circumstances. It may not be right, but I'd rather be suspended than dead, and a day at the beach with no pay isn't that bad a thing. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that that's the way it is. (not saying that I would detain those guys in the van without a name for the guy who called on the phone, but many guys I know would, and I think it's reasonable).

 

[Spotted Owl]

If alone without a partner (what I'm most familiar with), the best way may be to simply follow the van while hollering for other units to check the store.

I would think your first duty would be to check and render aid to the clerk who may still be alive.

 

[FrankDrebin]

I would think your first duty would be to check and render aid to the clerk who may still be alive.

Your first duty is to stay alive so you can take care of the rest. If you start messing with 3 guys who just killed someone, if you don't know what you're doing, or even if you DO know what you're doing and your number is up that day, you're dead. If you're dead, you're not any good to anyone who may or may not be alive in the store. And in my opinion, turning your bad, literally ot figuratively, to any extent to the guys in the van is not reasonable, even if you don't know they name of the caller who called from a pay phone. Was that a sentence run-on?

 

[Spotted Owl]

Your first duty is to stay alive so you can take care of the rest.

In the scenario under discussion, the bad guys just took off in their van, so what's the problem with checking on the clerk? The other poster said he'd tail the van while calling on the radio for other units to check on the clerk. Under these circumstances, I would think a cop's first duty is to check the clerk rather than tail the van.

 

[FrankDrebin]

I think it would be more reasonable to go after the guys in the van, preferably before they get out of the parking lot, and THEN check on the guy. People who do stuff like that generally do it again, and have done it before. I think there's a bigger plus to the community if you handle them first, if in fact they turn out to have really done what the caller said then did. If the guy is shot in the head, he's probably beyond anything you can do for him. And even if he was still alive, you're probably just going to wait for the fire/rescue types to get there and handle that end of it anyway.

 

[tyme]

The point in this example is that you can have the same kind of guys in a van, ready to kill you and not have reasonable suspicion enough to do what you need to do to stay alive based on a call from an anyonymous caller.

So what? According to the UCR, there were 13373 murders in 2003, and 62.4% of them were cleared. That means, in that year alone, the people who committed more than 5000 murders have not been caught directly. The majority of them are probably still walking the streets. Why not stop everyone you see and demand ID, a fingerprint card, and a DNA sample?

That's not to mention people who were arrested and charged but later were found innocent when they were guilty.

If you don't have RS, why are you even bothering to worry about the situation? It is not your job to catch all criminals or prevent every single crime. If it were, every single cop would be fired for unsatisfactory performance.

 

[FrankDrebin]

Why not stop everyone you see and demand ID, a fingerprint card, and a DNA sample?

Because I personally don't think that would be reasonable, where I do think it would be reasonable to stop the people in the other circumstance.

If you don't have RS, why are you even bothering to worry about the situation?

That's true...I probably shouldn't worry about it. Just pick up the pieces like the Average White Band says....

 

[tyme]

Not reasonable? Don't you want to catch those ~5000 murderers? Don't you think it's the duty of police everywhere to catch them? It would be a minor inconvenience to the people you stop. So what if they have to produce ID, get a little bit of ink on their fingers, and have a cotton swab stuck in their mouth. After a few minutes they'll recover everything except their pride.

 

[FrankDrebin]

How would a DNA sample let me reasonably catch those 5000 murderers? Chances are their fingerprints are already on file and that doesn't help unless they leave a usable fingerprint to put into AFIS. No, I think it's reasonable to check those guys in the van based on the phone call you got before you do anything else, but not reasonable to get DNA samples from everyone you run in to.

And actually, your number for "caught" murderers is probably quite a bit lower. I'm not sure, but I think they count a homicide as "cleared" if they identify a suspect. I don't think they even have to arrest him/her. Depends on who's doing the numbers I guess..

 

[tyme]

I'm under the impression that the police have physical evidence (dna, prints) from a lot of crime scenes, evidence that they can't match to an individual because most people (other than [ex-]convicts) don't have their dna or fingerprints on file. That is, other than thumbprints that some states' DMVs take for driver licensing, and just recently some LEO here or on THR claimed that Texas police don't run crime scene prints against the drivers license database. I have no reason to doubt him, but I still have trouble believing that if police in TX have nothing but a thumbprint from a crime scene they'll just sit on their hands after running it through NCIC or whatever the fingerprint database-in-the-sky is called.

Granted about the numbers probably being low. That's only for 2003, too. I thought clearing a case requires charging a suspect and not later withdrawing those charges, but it doesn't really matter. The raw number of murders where someone isn't convicted is higher than 5000. But there's also the consideration that some of those murders were committed by the same person or group, so the number of murderers walking around is less than the total number of murders where nobody's been convicted.

 

[FrankDrebin]

I don't think there is a "runnable" database of thumb prints on driver licenses. In order to "run" a print, the known print has to be submitted to the AFIS database, and I doubt they do that with driver license thumbprints...although I certainly could be wrong. I believe the purpose of the driver license thumb print is merely to be able to confirm if the person presenting that license is the person is was issued to.