1. there was no need for miranda to be read.
2. there was no entrapment, as the officer did not do anything to make the kid COMMIT a crime...he merely asked some questions about an event that he had witnessed.
3. No, we don't have to identify ourselves as peace officers when asking some simple questions...conversation is conversation...the original contact with the kid was a CONSENTUAL CONTACT (just like you talking to someone on the street). It was not a DETENTION that merits reasonable cause to stop, detain, and ask questions. There is no law that states a peace officer must identify themselves even when we are conducting an investigation. Look how many hookers are busted by an undercover thats driving a car around....they don't identify themselves and even LIE that they are not cops..and that arrest stands up in court with no problem.
4. what people here have failed to address...the kid gave details that only a person involved in the chase would have known about. You can read about a crime all you want, even brag about some stuff to make people think you did it, but you will NEVER know EVERY detail of what happened like the people involved in the incident. With those intimate details comes the evidence that the kid was the one involved in the chase, without a doubt.
Believe it or not, people confess to crimes they didn't commit all the time, to get notoriety. Those "confessions" are not even considered when the police interview the guy and he can't provide specific details to the crime. Once they have a guy that can provide all those details, then they know they have the guy.
5. people watch too much tv and think they know how laws are enforced and the rules we have to follow....this includes full time attorneys who, alot of times, just don't get it. People who are law students need to spend some time reading case law and then spout out their vast knowledge of criminal procedure. AND, furthermore..unless you are a practicing CRIMINAL defense or prosecuting attorney, you probably don't know shit about CRIMINAL law in the first place...you can run circles in your particular specialty, but don't spout out on information that you don't keep up on....meaning CRIMINAL case law.
6. we convict people for internet crimes all the time. You can trace a person to their IP address. You can confirm their identity...AND unless you can prove that someone else was using your name and password...you are the one tied to that name and password, especially if it comes off YOUR computer, from YOUR house.
Posting about crimes you have done in the past is pure stupidity. Unless the statute of limitiations has run out on your crime, you can still be busted for it. Bragging about that crime on the internet is just like walking up to a cop on the street and telling him what you did. At that spot he can't do anything to bust you, but with further investigation, you can get busted.
7. yes we can take your video camera as EVIDENCE of a crime being commited. We do this all the time from people walking around the street, what makes you different because you were riding a bike. BEST evidence is still BEST evidence. If I have a video of you reckless driving...during the time I was behind you...I can have that tape all I want...there is nothing you can do about it..sorry. It is evidence of the crime I just stopped you for. On the other hand, if you have video footage of another reckless driving case, where I was not a witness...oh well, there is nothing I can do about it, there is no reason for me to take your camera.
BUT, if it is video footage of you commiting a felony, then that tape is mine, backwards investigation follows and your going to get a free trip to the state provided hotel.
The thing you have to remember is this...a cop cannot arrest you for a MISDEMEANOR not commited in his presence. We need a citizen's arrest to take you. If you punched someone, didn't injure them, and the victim or any witnesses don't want to sign a citizen's arrest, then you walk away scott free.
Of course there are exceptions to the rule:
A. I can arrest with a warrant.
B. I can arrest for a misdemeanor spousal battery not committed in my presence...because of domestic violence laws in Cali.
C. I can arrest for a DUI not committed in my presence when the following conditions exist:
a. arrestee was involved in an auto accident
b. arrestee was in or about the vehicle obstructing a roadway
c. arrestee would not be apprehended unless immediately arrested
d. arrestee might hurt himself or damage property if not arrested
e. arrestee might destroy or conceal evidence unless arrested
f. delay would result in an inability to accurately determine suspect's blood alcohol level.
D. I can arrest a person carrying a loaded firearm.....if reported after the fact.
E. Carrying a concealed firarm in an airport.
F. assault or battery of an elderly (65+) related victim
G. assault on a firefighter or EMT
H. arrest of a minor
I. a citizen's arrest
8. there is no need to get approval from a supervisor to conduct investigation work on a case. It is expected that we do follow up investigation on our cases. Note that he was not investigating a crime he was not witness to. It was a case he was INVOLVED in. I am sure that there was a case written that evening when the chase occured, so this was merely followup for the officer.
I hope this cleared up a few things about what can and can't be done by law enforcement.
brash
