DNR & SON

[PUSSYFOOT]

To move with stealth or caution ,is what I need to do . My son and I returned from a saugeye fishing trip yesterday to be informed by my wife that a DNR officer had stopped by our home . He left a card and informed my wife that my son needed to call him , he would not tell her what it was about . I called the number and left him a message . He returned the call and proceeded to inform me that he would need to setup a time that he could meet with my son ( 17 year old ) and I . I asked him what this was about and he said he didn't want to talk about it over the phone that he wanted to do it in person . I asked is it about hunting or fishing he replied does your son hunt and I said yes . I then said so this is about hunting he didn't answer . I said he hasn't been hunting since deer season , so is this about deer hunting , he said yes . I informed him that I didn't even know where he killed his deer this year . He didn't reply so I informed him that I would talk to my son and call him back to setup a time to meet . My shot his deer with a crossbow on land that he has written permission from the land owner . But the check in station in the county that he shot it in closed early that day so he took it to the next county which is legal .I have a problem with this guy , why wouldn't he tell the parents what this is all about ? Why assume the worst of people. I think I will call him back and tell him I will meet with him in my church next Sunday and I am going to make it the early services can't make it this Sunday that lake we went to has a hot bite going on right now that I don't want to miss .

[LakeRat]

He wants to interview your son in reference to either being a witness to a violation or actually committing a violation. He is not telling you what it is all about because he is concerned that if the basis of the interview is revealed, then your son might opt for an attorney's advice and the interview might not happen. He also might not want to let you know for fear that he might tip off someone before the DNR gets to them. More likely that he wants to get into the interview process before you look out for your sons rights.

Talk to your son and PRESS him for answers, the DNR will. Get a lawyer and get his advice. If the DNR already had enough information to arrest your son, they would likely have done that. Chances are, clarification is needed on something and then a decision will be made.

The question is if he violated or is simply a possible witness to something.

His rights AFTER arrest:
He has the right remain silent, anything he says can and will be used against him in court, he has the right to an attorney and to have one appointed to him if he cannot afford one. He can stop answering questions at any time.

And no they do not have to tell him his rights even after his arrest, as they only pertain to questioning after a violation has been discovered. Until that point, they can ask away freely. And they are real good, so again, I would get an attorney.

[Reels]

I cant believe he wouldnt discuss with you. You son is still a minor and I wonder if you have the right to refuse without talking to you first, I agree, maybe call your family attorny and get some advice.

Good luck, I hope all turns out well.

<{{}}><

[iamwalleye1]

Make sure you are with your son! He is a minor and you can answer all the questions!

[Big K]

If the deer was shot in Wisconsin, it may pertain to the crossbow.

[Rick]

If it was my son, I'd do the following;

1. Talk with the kid and see if there is anything he can tell you.
2. If he doesn't know of anything wrong, set up the interview with you, him, and the DNR.
3. At the first question that even remotely sounds like he may be getting in over his head, stop the interview and get a lawyer. Don't believe that crap about "tells us everything now and we'll go easier on you later." If they have anything to arrest him on,they are going to do it anyway. No sense giving them help.
4. Make sure the lawyer is familiar with the DNR.
5. Make double sure that your son might not be hiding something physical in your house or on your property. I'd search every nook and cranny to be sure.

Right or wrong, he's your son and you need to try to protect him the best you can. I'll guarantee you the DNR is not going to be working in his best interest. I've seen these people at work and they are not your friends under circumstances like this.

And if he reads you son his rights before the interview begins "just for a formality" stop it right there and get the lawyer.

My 2 cents.

[Thumper]

All good advice. A lot of convictions happen because of information given to the officer by the person because they are unaware of the laws. I would never allow my son or daughter to go to any "interview" without the reason for the interview being given right up front and without an adult or guardian. The officer may have heard some rumours and is following up on them in the hopes of self incrimination. You also have to remember the officer is doing his job to the best of his ability as you are doing yours. Your son is being educated by this as well.Its easy to say that when its personnel like this but it may make it easier. Ricks advice is right on the money.

[hgmeyer]

Hi,

I'm a retired Police Officer, so I have a certain amount of experience and knowledge...

Here is what I would do (and why):

First, hire an attorney (at least for the "interview") and arrange for that interview to take place in the lawyer's office. In the evnt that there is an "arrest" there will not be an immdeiate search of the "house". Don't even think that you can "figure out" which questions are not to be answered. An attorney will know what to do and when.

Next, if you have not already done so...DO NOT INTERVIEW your son. You have no right to refuse to answer questions by a judge, a prosecutor, grand jury...under the Fifth Amendment if those questions pertain to your son. Only your son has a right to keep his mouth shut. Let the lawyer interview your son...IN PRIVATE...When it is all over, you can be let in on everything. This will be hard to swallow but do not under any circumstances get yourself into a position where you must choose between being the prosecution's best witness, or committing perjury to "protect" your son.

Finally, discuss NOTHING further here concerning the facts!!! Later, if you like, let us all know that everything worked out or it didn't...But, for now, just be quiet.

I got so many convictions by manipulating people...You get the picture.

Good luck.

[LakeRat]

What state do you and your son live in *****foot?

[Wallydoc]

Is it just me, or why is it that the primary emphasis seems to be on getting this kid off if he did something wrong?? Any concern out there about protecting the resource? *****foot does not mention even talking to his son about this, which bad idea or not, would be the common response to a game warden showing up at your front door. Maybe he did, but doesn't care to share the bad news. If it were my son, my interest would be in getting to the bottom of it. Whether he might have seen a violation or committed one, there could be a good lesson here (apparently for all of us).

[GANGGREEN]

Thanks Doc for saying what I was thinking. How about meeting with the officer in a timely manner, encouraging your son to answer any and all questions fairly and honestly and accepting the consequences IF your son did anything. If he did nothing then his honesty won't hurt him. Not all law enforcement officers are out there trying to fabricate cases and cheat honest citizens.

[BlackSilver]

>Is it just me, or why is it that the primary emphasis seems
>to be on getting this kid off if he did something wrong??

I don't notice any mention of "getting this kid off". I do see some concern for protecting his rights under the law (whether he broke a law or not).

I don't know of any laws that I have broken, but if a law enforcement official expresses interest in a conversation with me, I darn sure want to know the subject of the discussion before I consent. If the subject involves possible charges, then my lawyer will be a party to the conversation regardless of how certain I am that I broke no rules or regulations. Period.

SET the hook!!!

Hans/MN

[mckoz]

This is going to be a first - I 100% agree with Hans. There is too much at stake and even a simple miscommunication between the warden and your son could cost a load of time and $$'s to straighten out.

I've got a 26 year old who'll go toe to toe with anyone - he could handle himself just fine. On the other hand my 17 year old would be so nervous he could be talked into saying anything. I'd be looking out for the interest of my son particularly if I knew he did nothing wrong.

Mike

[risor39]

As someone has said before this warden is not looking out for the best interest of this boy.I also saw no mention about getting the boy off.There are many instances of innocent people getting burned for being honest and open.Get a lawyer and let him decide what should be said.Innocent until proven guilty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hgmeyer]

This is (usually) not the world that I grew up in...One where "Game Wardens" spent time educating when an "honest mistake" was made (and even sometimes when it was deliberate) in the hope that future compliance was more important than immdeiate punitive enforcement (read that as arrest and citation for everything). Sadly, the current state of affairs in law enforcement disgusts me...it is enforcement for revenue purposes...technical issues prevail. I could have made 20-30-40 traffic arrests a day (wouldn't have had time to wite all the tickets in a shift) but I was taught to enforce for compliance...a warning with a "get out of jail free speech" went a long way to getting what was wanted...compliance.

It has been my experience that the "new" methodology is to look for the tiniest most obscure technical violations and then write the citation for it (with glee)... Discretion has been de-emphasized to the detriment of good law enforcement practices and public cooperation. It is a well documented fact that traffic enforcemnent has eroded the public perception of the "average patrol officer" to the p;oint that most people seem to believe that all officers are the south end of a north running horse...

In a past era I too would advocate cooperation and "negotiations" with the oficer to the goal of correcting behavior if it were a minor offense...Not so today...have any of you heard the tale of the fish hatchery employee who was charged and arrested for cruelty to an animal after he killed a cat so he could have it tested for rabies after it bit him .(short version of long story)...to many horse hockey caes are prosecuted. Frankly, I would not trust the DNR any farther than I can throw them...This kid could be in trouble when it does not make sense...Far better to treat it as a possible mess and maintain some sense of controlk of it.

I am as eager to see poaching stopped...short fish have no business in the livewell...but they ought to be at least obviously short..not a millimeter or two, too short... Common sense it no longer an academy class...too bad...but true. I may have been a "throwback" and maybe felt I should be arresting officer, judge and jury...but I was trained to look at the goal...not at my "numbers".

Sorry, this "soap box" subject for me with p;ersonal aspects...I worked at being professional and fair...today professional means one thing "production"..."numbers".

As I said, above, get the kid a lawyer and duck! A lawyer will ensure his rights...and your sanity.

[Thumper]

Good post hgmeyer.....

[Rick]

I don't think anyone wants the kid to "get off" of anything. Having a 17 year old kid go up against professional law enforcement officers in any investigation is like you or me going up against Mike Tyson for 10 rounds. These people are professionals and the family should be represented by professionals. DNR may try to hang him on some technicality or maybe he broke some obscure regulation he was not even aware of. In Indiana it is against the law to sell a cold soft drink in a liquor store. Make sense? No. Can you get arrested for it? Yes. Only warm soft drinks sold in liquor stores. This is the type of thing I'm talking about.

I think everyone on this site would want to see the kid or anyone pay his dues for a serious violation. I'm tired of seeing generally good kids in more trouble for taking a pocket knife to school than the ones that stand on the corners with 9mm's in their jacket selling crack . Common sense has taken a leave of absence in our judicial system. They'd rather make an example of someone for killing a deer within 100' of a salt lick than for aggravated assault during a robbery.

[Pussyfoot]

He will not talk to my son without a lawyer, I will not call him back and I will bet my G Loomis spincast rod the boy didn't do anything wrong .Straight A student killed his first deer with a muzzle loader running at 75 yards when he was 14 . I will post the results and facts when they happen , thanks for all of your advice .

[scooter]

If you live in Wisc.YOU had better have a crossbow permit to hunt deer with one even during archery season.If your son shot a deer with a cross bow and he does not have a permit he was in the wrong!I hope that was a misprint about him shooting a deer with a crossbow or he does have the permit.They normally issue permits for medical reasons such as disabilitys.
It is possiable that he may have bragged to someone or some one he knows turned him in.
Either way get a lawyer I hope he dosnt need it but I have a feeling he will.


Hope it works out
Scooter

[Cormorant]

Thank you wallydoc. I get the same feeling. hgmeyer I'm glad you're retired. I'm currently a cop and see your attitude in some of the old guys I work with. You did your dept a huge favor by leaving. If this were my kid I would make HIM call the warden back AND arrange a meeting. Why do we all jump to conclusions that just because "the Law" shows up that someone did something wrong? hg, did you ever have someone lie to you during an interview? Maybe one of this kids friends gave up his name for an alibi? *****foot, if your son did something wrong, why shouldn't he have to take responsibility for his actions? Don't be one of those parents who say "Oh not my little angel. He would never..." Help him learn to be a man - not a coward.

If it's nice enough to golf, it's nice enough to fish. Jason

[LakeRat]

Dictated like a typical administrator and repeated like a true Rookie!

Read closer and understand that his son has rights under the constitution! I already told him to talk to his son and get to the bottom of things! However, his rights need to be protected as all citizens do under the law. If he is offered a "deal" is it really in his best interests or not. The DNR is not in a position to offer anything, the DA is. So, junior sings and then gets the full brunt. Now who is the bad guy. Jr. or the lying cop! The point is that there are always very excellent reasons to have an attorney present during an interview, and judges ask if the citizens were told of their rights. Some cops don't even read the rights until well into the interview. After an interview when the citizens finally get a lawyer, he asks did he read you your rights and the answer is yes.

Too often "when" is never covered! So *****foot, assuming that you already are smart enough to know what you expect from your son honesty wise, talk to him in depth, but get him a lawyer.

For the other readers out there, get a copy of the "Reid Technique" of Interviews and Interrogations for further reading into the deceptive practices and false promises made during Police interviews.

And for the rest of the Officers out there, remember that the reason there are Lawyers out there, are to represent those that you arrest!

If you do your job legally and ethically, you will not have to defend your techniques! They will be understood. Innocent citizens will not and should not give up their rights just to make the job easier on Law Enforcement Officers. It's their country. Their rights.

[CJHughes]

I would rather give 500 bucks to a lawyer than to give 10 cents to the DNR . If it was my kid I would get the lawyer . There are good cops out there too bad they retired .

[LakeRat]

Answer in Wisconsin is yes! They will go to the local school and pull JR. out of class and in most cases with the good graces of the School Administrator.

They do this for two reasons. The vast majority of Officers work days and that is the best use of their time as opposed to trying to get in a large number of interviews in the late afternoon. The other is a strategic advantage over JR. as there will be NOBODY present during the interview and it will be said that his cooperation will make things alot better.

They do not think the parents or attorneys should be involved in giving JR. advice while extracting information from him. Of course if Law Enforcememnt had their way, there would only be freely given confessions by people without any of that technical stuff!

Why? They can be sloppy! And that lack of vision might cost an innocent citizen his freedom or cause hardship....... all in the name of getting the bad guy.

[lobo1]

In Michigan we wouldn't discuss anything with the parent of a 17 year old. As much as the parent would like to think that it is their business, in the eyes of the law - it's not. At 17 years in MI you are an adult, in the legal system, and we would share very little with you or more likely nothing.
Even at 16 years we would share next to nothing with you, especially on the phone. We would not be allowed to speak to 16 year old without your presence, at 16 it is up to the parents to look out for the minor's rights.

From your post, I would not be alarmed one bit and would make the meet. IF your son made a mistake - I think the way you assist him in handling it will make a lifelong impression. Nobody is "out to get you" or your son. Just answer the questions honestly and if there are consequences to face - so be it.

I wouldn't even hire an attorney unless you know your son is in deep $$it.

lobo

[Marble Eyes]

You should be ashamed of posting that!
That attitude is what is wrong with alot of LEO's.

[hgmeyer]

Jason,

You have a lot to learn...I hope that as you learn it on the backs of the citizens you swore to serve and protect they can survive it.

And, I would normally not do this...but 1n my "twenty" I took two knife wounds and one bullet...serving my "people" and my department; along the way in a 250 man department I was awarded the rank of Lieutenant and enough citations and awards to fill your Chevy. And, sadly, they were not too happy to see me leave...I took all that experience and wisdom out the door with me...because I had to work with attitudes like yours...Arrogance and lack of understanding...wipe your own nose someday... I got tired of doing it and then cleaning up after some zealot! When you have sopme credibility I'd love to listen to you...But, you sound like every other polyester clad A$$ they are training today..."we're righteous and they deserve to get whatever..." #####, ANOTHER TAX COLLECTOR WITH A TICKET BOOK!

[GR8WTHUNTER]

My 2 cents, Have an attorney there for the interview. As others posted, it might be nothing. I have no respect for the new breed game wardens and their tactics. I was detained at my truck for just over 2 hours the entire time enduring intense interigation. The reason for the hard line questioning? I was hunting about 6 miles in and it was about 2 hours after dark when I made it out to the truck. The entire questioning process was angled to create an offense. The wardens final words to me were to watch out and that he was going to get me. For what?????

That being said, there are still a few good wardens that will treat you fair. We had two wardens walk in on a hunt to do a liscens check. The guy that checked me was friendly and courteous. My buddy was not as lucky. The rookie warden grilled him and fined him because his liscense was not in the middle of his back (it was on his lower back nead his belt line) and his doe tag was not signed (he had a valid buck tag). This could be nothing, but being represented by an attourney to protect your or your son's rights is not an admission of guilt

[Cormorant]

I don't know where you guys get the impression that LEO's are "all knowing" and can make innocent people confess to something they didn't do. There was talk about the "Reid Technique." Yes, that is a sneaky way to interview someone. But ask yourself this. What if YOU were the victim. What if some 17 yo kid stole your GLoomis out of your boat. How would you want this handled? And, what if a warden was sitting across the table from you accusing you of something you didn't do. Under what circumstances would you say "yeah, you got me."?? I can't think of any. I'd love to go to an interview like that (where I was falsley accused.) I would have so much fun telling the cop to "get bent." You guys who are screaming "get a lawyer!" must have had a bad experience with law enforcement. If that is the case, I'm sorry for the idiots you had to deal with. Please know that most cops are good guys/gals looking out for victims. Jason

[Rick]

Even if the kid broke a hunting rule last fall, what good will it do to admit to it now and have it on his record? If they have evidence, fine. If not, the kid would be making a mistake to incriminate himself now just so someone can fill their monthly quota.

Your attitude of "let the chips fall where they may" might sound great to you now but lets see what happens if your kid makes a mistake. And they all do. The magnitude of the screw-up is the only thing you can't know until it happens.

Oh, by the way, I'm sure that everytime you create a wake in a "no-wake" zone, or you exceed the speed limit on the highway, or maybe roll through a stop sign out in the country, the first thing you do is to report yourself to the local authorities for appropriate disiplinary measures. But wait, you're a cop, these rules don't apply to you.

Your attitude is exactly why the kid needs a lawyer.

[Cormorant]

HG, How'd you know I had a Chevy? I shouldn't have singled you out and for that I'm sorry. When I saw you were a cop and then the advice you gave I felt betrayed. Your advice was of course sound but maybe a little paranoid? The 17 yo "kids" I deal with are smart and the "bad" ones are not intimadated by cops at all. I am not a tax collector with a ticket book. I am however a public employee who loves his job and gives it 100%. I want the people I deal with to feel at least a portion of their tax money is going to something good.

[Za DNR Geshtapo]

Civil Rights? Constitutional rights? They DO NOT exist in the eyes of the DNR.

[LakeRat]

The key is MOST cops are good, not ALL cops!

That is why he should get a lawyer! To protect him from SOME cops!

As to public relations, tell them the about the latest technique being "TAUGHT" to catch drugs transported on our highways!

You are profiled! And beleive it or not, many fishermen would fit that profile while not being involved in drugs at all.

Biker or "dead head" stickers, long hair, old vehicles that look lived in for a few days, a few old McDonald's bags on the floor and etc...

To stop that vehicle for "anything", things like a light bulb on the license plate being burned out, any kind of equipment violation, anything, and then go fishing for drugs by conning them into beleiving that an honest citizen would never turn down an innocent little search for drugs! None are found MOST of the time and there must be hundreds on innocent citizens fished out before you get a keeper! Alot of Officers looking for promotions off that "big bust" out there!

Review your "techniques"! Then ask the citizens why they have a bad taste for LEO's!

And face it, all victims want instant justice! It is your job to locate and bring a violator to justice. AND to do it legally and ethically! No rush for justice allows an Officer to stand on the head of an accused citizen to extract information in the name of the victim, because then you have to start asking who the real victim and criminal is? Sue a man caught destroying your rod and reel and you will likely get the cost of replacing the items! Sue a man for violating your constitutional rights and get huge money! The violations of citizens rights are a very serious issue in the courts!

Attorney's are there to watch out for the rights of the citizens.

So, quit trying to BS these people into doing everything the nice police man tells you, the new breed of officer has lost that trust! If you want it back, locate your integrity and put it on the line. Experienced Officers do! And remember, those that do the job, do it! Those that don't, teach! There is also a new trend in Wisconsin where former officers are the instructors on things like Criminal Law and Rules of Evidence in the Technical Colleges. Some of these guys have degrees in criminology, but only a year or two as a real officer! And of course, no Law Degree! How does that work? No wonder there are problems!

Mr. Meyer is correct, and he understands the philosophy of the Constitution and its Amendments to protect all citizens! No short cuts! Even people found guilty have limited rights.

And of course the number one thing that eludes all the conversations thus far.......... What if an Officer is Wrong? You know....they rarely are!

As to innocent people confessing, you are trained that it happens, why then don't you beleive that it can. There was a case on a TV documentary just this weekend where not only a 14 year old falsly confessed to murdering his sister, but they got two of his friends to also confess! Then, an outside investigator located the real killer and even has DNA evidence to back him. All three juveniles were released. The real killer has yet to be charged. IT DOES HAPPEN! Not in every instance, but it does happen.

As to the victim's wishes, if you can take short cuts around the law, then why can't the vicitm's? Let them have there way under your arguement! Sounds like a return to lynching!

So, why get a lawyer? To protect your rights!

Geeeesh!

[Cormorant]

I have not been taught profiling. I have not been taught "police brutality and how to use it effectively." I cannot believe so many think the police would beat a confession out of someone. You see it all the time on TV. But come on, that is TV! Maybe that is the way it was years ago. I don't know. I've only been an officer for about 7 years. I do know the guys I work with would not beat someone.

As far as getting the big bust for a promo... The dept I work for is small. The opportunity for advancement usually only comes up after a retirement. The reason I look for the "big bust" is because it's the right thing to do. I probably would get an "atta boy" but that's it. The paycheck would still look the same.

What happened to taking responsibility for your actions and telling the truth? Do you have an opinion about the OJ trial? No need to go into huge detail. Just, was justice done?

[TangledAngler]

Here goes, blast away.

I'm a criminal defense lawyer and here's what I would do if it were my son:

Absolutely do not let him speak to the law enforcement officers. Regardless of whether he's a "good" one or a "bad" one, they have a job to do and that's investigate. Each will try to gather information and then make the determination as to whether charges should be filed. News Alert: Even the good ones have an obligation to file charges when they are justified.

Now, he has the absolute right to remain silent. Our federal Constitution (as well as all state constitutions) provides that he can't involuntarily be a witness against himself. That means he doesn't have to talk to anyone. Now, *****foot, be careful about talking to him. Although it rarely happens, you could be subpoenaed to testify as to what he told you. There's no such thing as a parent-child privilege (as someone already pointed out).

Let the lawyer do the talking.

Admitting to any little thing like crossbow ownership or hunting a certain area can be used against him. Don't take that risk.

If you want, email me. I'll gladly help you out.

Find a lawyer.

[eyeski]

Pretty Heated Exchanges--- I think alot of people gave some sound advise, some do fear "the man" either because of bad experiences personally or from not quite true stories that have been passed from friends to friends. If you feel more comfortable, get an attorney, but
remember reveal the truth as lying is a crime and in WI 17 year olds go directly to jail w/out passing go. If in the end guilt is found, don't
blame "the man" for the offense. There are alot of different personalities out there in law enforcement. If you have a problem with that officer,notify his supervisor.....Everybody else should be fishing...Hope it works out..

[Marble Eyes]

You say;"I have not been taught "police brutality and how to use it effectively." I cannot believe so many think the police would beat a confession out of someone. You see it all the time on TV. But come on, that is TV! Maybe that is the way it was years ago. I don't know."


Don't watch the news much do you? Seems to happen every so often in the real world. Seems like every year or so in Detroit, Abner Louima got a Rectal Exam with a Night stick in New York by one of their Finest.

About a Month ago The FBI pulled over the WRONG GUY in Virgina and "accidently" shot him in the Jaw, then left him laying down for (according to the victims girlfreind) 40 minutes before they called for Medical assistance. The victim and girlfriend was in a vehicle that didn't even match the supposed Bank Robbers. But Mistakes happen, and they did apologize for it, and Remember NEITHER THE VICTIM OR HIS GIRLFREIND had anything to hide, OR had done anything ILLEGAL. Oh, and the IDIOT that shot that Innocent man is on PAID administrative leave while the FBI conjures up a good SNOW JOB and sweeps it under the rug.

ahh nevermind... If after 7 years as a cop you don't see it you never will. It's a shame the rest of the public will suffer because of it.

[tjsker]

Get an attorney first. If you then find out from his attorney that your son was in the wrong, then you can make him face up to it. But get an attorney first.

[LakeRat]

None of these exchanges were heated.....not one threat made. Off color remarks.....pfffft. Nothing to get excited about.

[observer]

Hopefully you do not live in Ohio. The Ohio gamewardens will get your son sooner or later. Even if the offenses are based upon drunken talk from your local town bar or pub. I know a guy in Ohio that was flat out harrased last deer season in Ohio. His neighbor that does not like him called the local gamewarden on him and made up a charge that the guy killed a deer on his property without permission. It was a complete lie. This guy had not even taken a shot at a deer yet and hunts on his own property. It was enough for the gamewarden though.

The guy I mention lives on his own 60 acre farm and has a tree stand 500 yards off the road in the edge of his woods. For the next 5 days the young warden drove down his road during prime hunting hours and walked back to his tree stand to check out his gun, ammo, orange, and license. The warden was deliberately harrasing him. The guy finally got sick and tired of the harassment and told the warden to write him any ticket he wanted. The warden obliged him with a tresspasing ticket and stopped harrasing him.

[BlackSilver]

At the second instance of this harrassment, "the guy you mention" should have simply had his lawyer contact the Ohio state DNR Commissioner. Caving in to those tactics just makes this jerk more likely to think he can get by with it again, and sooner or later somebody will be hotheaded enough push back, perhaps violently.

SET the hook!!!

Hans/MN

[jailhouserock]

i say, jail all of the law men and let anarchy rule!!! let the poor boy be. he is just an innocent victim of circumstance. he would never cause trouble. he is a good boy.

[LakeRat]

Did jailhouse just fart?

[eyeski]

L.RAT- I guess I just meant heated in that some strongly disagree with each other..Off color remarks.?.I'm not sure where this comes from, perhaps my terms were misunderstood ????, when I was in school, we useed to say "the man" is here when the police showed up and I'm not excited about anything, just throwing in my two cents....WOW

[LakeRat]

eyeski, I know! The pfffft meant "no big deal". Nothing off color in what you said at all. I was just refering to the "doing the department a favor" comment made in a different post. Nothing you said bothered me at all.

Good luck at the lake!

[Schnauzer]

Marble Eyes,

Am I reading your post correctly? Are you saying an overzealous female CO (or any female, for that matter) "deserves" to be assaulted, stripped naked, and tied to a tree?

I've read it a couple times to find a different meaning but that's what I keep coming up with.

If that's what you are saying, I can't disagree more. I would be very concerned the person responsible for that might take further steps to display his frustration the next time he is upset by a female. Not cool.

[hgmeyer]

Can't say that I condone in any way the methodology...But, sometimes it does take a wakeup call...I think there are much better ways than "assaulting" someone...For instance...file a complaint with superiors...I am aware of the success that was achieved in a somewhat similar situation of an overzealous conservation officer "inspecting" traps and nets of commercial fishermen...daily!...those nets need to settle in before they are effective...getting lifted by the CO interfered with the success (read that livelihood) of the commercial fisherman...Officer's (somewhat arrogant response) was that he had a right to inspect those nets anytime he chose...A concerned State Senator had a chat with a supevisor who had a chat with Officer..who ignored that first chat...so the Senator had a chat with the head of the Dept...discussing budgets, etc...The head of the Dept had a second chat on the phone with the new CO at his home reminding him of his duties and obligations...Officer's attitude changed...wakeup call!

That is a longer time consuming approach...same success...

[flyman]

With the info given, I don't see any problem with what the DNR officer did. He is doing his job, and secrecy is often paramount to doing the job effectively. I won't make the jump to the conclusion that he is being underhanded, any more than I would make the jump to the conclusion that your son must be guilty. They have the right to ask, your son has the right to say nothing to them. The system works. I've never met one of the "bad" officers the other posters talk about. If I were to make a generalization, it would be that those I've personally met (ie. not on a message board) that didn't "trust" officers were law breakers. The problem with generalizations like that (or one about officers) is that they are too often wrong.

I would go to the interview and ask what it is about (assuming I didn't already know). If they won't answer that satisfactorily, then I would say interview over and leave.

With the tiny amount of info I have, that is about all the advice I can offer about what to do.

What not to do? Don't provide misleading or false answers. As an example, that Condit guy might have had nothing to do with the interns death. The only evidence pointing to him is his own misleading statements, and even the Democrats don't defend him anymore because of those statements. I've also heard instances of witnesses not giving info in cases in which they are not even suspects based on irrational fears, and that has always rubbed me the wrong way. I know virtually nothing about your situation or if any of this applies in any way. Just some more food for thought.

[ak1]

hear! hear! Schnauzer...what an idiotic statement! take a look at the icon in Marble Eyes post, what is that a self portrait.

[Marble Eyes]

Well, you would have to take that up with them IF the story is true.

[Marble Eyes]

Any time you wish to find out please drop by. My door is always open, just knock first.

I made no personal attack against you, please grant me the same.
Thank you.

[Schnauzer]

Marble Eyes,

I certainly would take it up with "them" if I knew who they were (I'm sure the police, DA, and a few human rights organizations would be there along side of me).

I believe your words were "Sometimes people actually get what they deserve". That is what caused me to reply originally to you. That comment leads me to believe you agree with those actions. So, I have no problem taking that up with you or anyone else who agrees with that opinion. I don't know who "they" are but I do know you're Marble Eyes and you apparently think it is OK (for others) to strip women naked and tie them to a tree if you disagree with the way they go about doing their job.

Stop by a battered women's shelter some time and see how many people there agree this is a case of someone getting what they deserve.

[LakeRat]

A cop will ALWAYS get an attorney if they go into an internal investigation. Guilty or not! Now, why do you think they do that?

Now why do you think they tell you that you should just go give "Officer Good Buddy" a statement without a lawyer?

I have seen Officers laugh at "how stupid" citizens are that they think that they understand the law well enough to proceed without a lawyer. And that has resulted in numerous false convictions over the years.

Get a lawyer.

[JasonMN]

Hey *****foot - How about an update?

[SUPERTROLLER]

I agree! It was pretty insensitive of them not to leave her socks on. It was probably cold on her feet to have to stand there for an extended length of time at that time of year.

This story sounds too unbelieveable, even for Michigan. It never happened.

[LCFISHERMAN]

Bump to the top

[bob]

Make sure your kid doesn't have any major enemies. It is very easy to go to a game warden and say "I know this kid that poached ten deer" If you know what I mean. I am 22 and I have been in a good amount of trouble so I am familiar to the legal system. Tell your kid the consequences. He will not go to jail unless, heaven forbid there is a trial, and he is convicted after his birthday. Tell him if he is in major sh*t that he can loose his hunting privelages for ever. If he is an avid hunter that would really hit home. Try to find out how major it is. If it is something minor hold off on the lawyer. I have paid as much as 2000 dollars just for a lawyer to show up. If he is an obedient kid and has never been in trouble with the law and has never lied then there is no reason to search the house. That would be like sniffing your old ladies pannies to see if she is cheating even though she has never lied before.

[Pussyfoot]

I have done what I said I was going to do NOTHING . I didn't call him back and he hasn't called or stopped over . I found some very good advice here and I thank you for it , if anything ever happens I will post it .

[punch1]

*****foot,

Assuming you ever find out what the charges or allegations are, if any, and your son is guilty, there is generally no reason to waste your money on an attorney if the allegations or charges are not very serious. This is normally the proper course of action, but it is not always true.

If he is not guilty and the allegations or charges that are brought are serious, than by all means get an attorney as soon as possible.

I have seen all to many times where a defendant retains an attorney on a non-serious offense and ends up getting what he could have plead into the first place by talking to the District Attorney. The same can be said about some people who try to work their way through the legal system when they really should have representation.

I have to say that I am upset with some of LakeRat’s comments. I understand his frustration if he has dealt with the wrong group of guys but some of his comments are dead wrong or at the very least seriously slanted.

In regards to LakeRat's comments, it would appear that he has had the misfortune of dealing with some misguided police officers if what he says is true. There is no cop that I know that would ever want the wrong person convicted of a charge. NONE! Now don't get me wrong, there are some crooked officers out there. I don't know of any personally but am not blind to what I see and hear from the media. They are the very rare exception rather than the norm. The same could certainly be said for all lines of work. Just because there are crooked attorneys out there does not mean I wouldn't go to one either.

As to LakeRat’s reference about innocent people confessing to crimes, any good interviewer will make dead sure that the person making the admission doesn't just admit to the wrong doing but corroborates it with facts that would only be known by the person who committed the crime. That is basic fundamental interviewing. Anything short of that is grade-school type tactics.

As to a police officer talking to a juvenile without an attorney or parent present, it is true and the Supreme Court allows those statements provided they meet all the other requirements that are applicable to all citizens. Juveniles are afforded no extra Constitutional rights nor are they denied any Constitutional rights based upon their age. All citizens are afforded the same rights.

I'm not sure if LakeRat is a retired police officer or an attorney but either way he sounds knowledgeable enough to know that there is always some "street plea-bargaining". It is called discretion and it is used all the time. Don't believe me? Next time you get pulled over for a traffic violation call the officer every name in the book and tell him he doesn't know what he is doing and then tell him you have received 6 speeding tickets this year already. Now take the same scenario but this time apologize for the infraction and be courteous and polite and see if the results are the same. That's just one example of many times where officers may or may not use their discretion when making decisions.

For the record, the "Reid Technique" of Interviews and Interrogations does NOT teach the officer to be deceptive and it certainly does NOT teach an officer to lie or make false promises in the interviews. The Reid school has proven to be a very successful program and it would not be around if it didn't past the muster of the courts. LakeRat has either (a) never attended the Reid school (b) attended but did not understand what was taught or (c) got some seriously misguided information from someone else. LakeRat I would be very careful about what you say about this company or any company for that matter. All it takes is for the right person to bring some of your comments about the Reid school to the attention of someone in the right position. That is not a threat nor should it be construed as one, I'm just saying you are entitled to your opinions but be careful on which words you use.

And as far as profiling, the US Supreme Court has said that officers cannot profile. That's it plain and simple. If someone makes a traffic stop or an arrest based solely upon a profile, that case will get dismissed so fast that the officer would never know what hit him. Not to mention the possible civil liability!

Drug interdiction teaches you to maximize your effectiveness while performing your duty. It teaches you to look out for traffic violations first! You cannot stop anyone unless you have probable cause that a traffic violation is or has occurred. Not every person who committed the most minor of traffic infractions can possibly be stopped because it would take way too much time to do so. So what drug interdiction teaches an officer to do is to look for other indicators. LakeRat mentioned some of those indicators, however many were left out. There are thousands of different indicators that create a higher probability that someone may be involved with trafficking in narcotics. All of these indicators combined with the traffic offense allow an officer to stop a vehicle and inquire as to whether the subject has any drugs in the vehicle, but only after the nature of the original violation has been addressed and disposed of. Then the questioning must be brief. If the officer’s beliefs that there may be narcotics in the vehicle is substantiated or strengthened after the questioning then the officer is encouraged to ask for consent to search a vehicle. Of course a person has a legal right to refuse consent and at that time the contact must be terminated.

Does this necessarily mean that every long-haired hippie wearing a tee-shirt that says "I Smoke Dope" with pot leaf stickers planted all over the cars bumper actually has narcotics in the vehicle? Of course not. Is there a higher likelihood that this person will have narcotics in their car as compared to an 80-year-old woman on her way to church bingo after Sunday's mass? I would think so.

If LakeRat or whomever he referred to had to search "hundreds of innocent citizens" cars before finding one with narcotics, he or they surely must not have been paying attention at the drug interdiction school. Contrary to what LakeRat implied, the Supreme Court allows officers "to stop that vehicle for "anything", like a light bulb on the license plate being burned out, any kind of equipment violation, anything" even if the reason for the stop is really drug interdiction related. As long as there is a justifiable and legal reason for the original stop. At that time an officer can pursue a line of action that is deemed to be drug interdiction.

Finally LakeRat, your last comments deeply concern me. If you have witnessed "numerous false convictions over the years" because a person is "stupid" by not getting an attorney, why did you stand idle while your colleagues laughed at them? I hope your were not an officer actually witnessing this. Maybe I misunderstood something here, but this really puzzles me.

LakeRat, I hope that you don't take any of my comments too personal. It will probably be hard not to, just as I found it difficult not to take some of your comments personally. I have nothing against you but I feel compelled to respond to some of the erroneous information that was given out here. This profession is tough enough at times to get the public to rally behind what we do and to support you. With comments like yours, it makes it all the tougher. So instead of coming on a public forum and bashing the profession, take your time and energy and try to correct some of the problems that you have observed with your department or the department your are referring to.

Pat

[LakeRat]

Punch1, I have not taken your ignorant comments personally, as they are based on your "profile" of me that you have deduced from these posts. Your profile is way off.

As to your false inference or allegations of improper behavior on my part and improper training comprehension, your wrong! But, then thats "profiling".

"Profiling" is taught and is practiced in drug interdiction and other areas. They are "profiling" today in every port in the country. There it is! No misunderstanding or confusion, just your attempt to frost a sour cake. Facts are facts and it is going on. It's been documented in the news. I am not going to banter with you over training issues. You have your opinion, like I have mine. And, I am not going to profile you, like you have tried with me.

As to the "Reid Technique", I said get a "copy for further READING into the deceptive practices and false promises made during police interviews". I did not say that THEY were deceptive! They cover the issue of deceptive practices and false promises in their book. They are not teaching it as a practice or condoning it. You read my statement that way as you have a negative opinion of my opinion. It's part of your "profile" of me.

Isn't it interesting how one persons mind-set can predetermine another persons innocence, guilt, knowledge, ability, integrity and trustworthiness!

You have corroborated my point on bad deductions derived from profiling. Thank you!

The point about officers laughing about citizens that they thought were stupid for not invoking their rights, was a point to show how many officers will "legally" and knowingly avoid the issue of rights when they are allowed, yet knowing that they themselves, would invoke those rights if it were them.

Many times a citizen will ask if they should get a lawyer. An officer knows the party is over when they get one, as the lawyer will usually say to end the interview until he is present. And, that the laughing shows disrespect for the citizens in the first place. Lack of respect leads to false convictions of citizens who did not seek to protect their rights from those types of officers. Those are the kind of officers that take short cuts and actually use "grade school" methods!

And as to that, there have been many false convictions over the years as has been documented in the media lately due to DNA testing!

So, I have witnessed the laughing after interviews and during the
camaraderie. But, I have not been aware of false convictions in those instances, contrary to your false inference attempt.

One final thing. You need only "reasonable grounds to beleive a violation has or is occuring" to make a stop. A stop is not an arrest. You can make an arrest only when you have "probable cause" based on evidence, which in most cases you do not have until after the stop.

Example: Car all over the road (reasonable grounds) ....Is the driver drunk or operating left of center. You must stop to investigate. Strong odor of alcohol on his breath, glassey eyes, can't perform a physical dexterity test etc... (probable cause). In most cases, only after a stop is made, can you determine PC for an arrest. Something like speeding is an exception but not the only one.

Now, lets stop the law class and profiling and get back to fishing.

[TangledAngler]

Punch,

Close but no cigar.

First of all, innocent people do confess to crimes they don't commit. Check out the Innocent Project beig run a law students and lawyer Barry Sheck. The have exonerated a number of people that were proved "actually innocent" by DNA testing despite that there were confessions attributed to them. I can tell you, where I practice law, there are some police officers who are widely known to create confessions that never occurred. Moreover, because of the tactics of law enforcement, less than intelligent suspects have confessed to crimes they didn't commit. Personally, I can't believe that someone could be that stupid but they are. By the way, the use of deception to get confessions is sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Because of that, deception plays a major role in many interrogations.

If you can afford it, always get an attorney, regardless of the gravity of the offense. The smaller convictions add up. There are definitely times where a pro se defendant could get the same result as an attorney. BUT, there are many times where I see a defendant get taken advantage of because they are without counsel. It happens more often than not. Unfortunately, because of the expense of hiring an attorney, most people make their legal decisions based on their pocketbook. That's unfortunate. If everyone had access to affordable, competent representation, I assure you there would be much fewer convictions.

In Pennsylvania, a juvenile must be accompanied by a parent before he is interrogated.

Your comments about profiling are naive. It happens all the time. I've never heard of or seen a case get tossed because of it. That's because any cop worth his weight can create some legitimate basis for the stop.

You don't need probable cause to pull a car over. Under frequent scenarios, you don't need consent of the driver either to search the car. The basis for most vehicle searches is pretextual, that is, the cops have another reason wholly unrelated to the broken taillight, etc for pulling the car over. It's very easy to defend the search after the fact.

I loved the comment about cops hiring lawyers when they get in trouble. I've defended a number of cops over the years. They are the biggest sticklers for their constitutional rights.

[Cormorant]

Well said. I enjoyed reading every line. Jason

[Canadian Ice Angler]

I fish a popular lake in NW Ontario and have been pulled over at least a dozen times for minor infractions. The last one was a license plate not visible (I had drive through snow for fifty miles). We are straight forward guys and I grew tired of it. We leave the snowmachine at the cottage now. In the last two years I have not been pulled over but every time I'm out pretty much you'll see OPP cruisers with half tons and a snowmachine in the back pulled over. Profiling...A definite Yes....****** Off...A definite Yes

[CJHughes]

Well said TangledAngler I have brushed off tickets that I recieved while trapping (Trespassing ) only later to have it come back and bite me later. You don't want anything on your record no matter how small you think it is .

[SnellTier]

I surely second this. Get an attorney right away and have your son lay out the truth to him/her. Meet with the DNR guy with your attorney present. Tell your son to keep his mouth shut unless the attorney says otherwise.

THOSE PEOPLE DO NOT NOT NOT have YOUR best interest at heart!!!

[SnellTier]

Cormorant, I can see by your post that you are a very YOUNG man. Young men see things in black and white, with zero shades of gray. When you have been around for a while, you will see that nearly EVERYTHING is a shade of gray.

The reason that the "get an attorney" advice is good advice is EXACTLY because of people with your attitude.

YOU should be the one in a different job. It scares me to know that you have a badge and a gun.

And, by the way, I am very much a "law and order" man. However, "LAW" is not without its counter-part ... rights. They are the 2 sides of the same coin.

[punch1]

Tangled Angler, we meet again!

Here are the facts. I presented a response to what I thought was an unfairly painted picture of the law enforcement profession by LakeRat. I am saying that the bad cop is the extreme exception rather than then the rule. If you agree with me on that point than we really have nothing further to debate. However, if you disagree with me than there really is nothing here that I can say or do to change your opinion. That opinion is based upon your life experiences, whether real or perceived.

I never said people don't confess to crimes they didn't commit. I said a good investigator would solidify his or her case with not only the defendant's admission but his or her corroboration of the events as well. This along with physical evidence and eyewitness testimony amongst other things, are what make or break a case. A defendant can recant his or her testimony and often do. But the defendant’s argument is much weaker if their statement is corroborated. Unless of course there are allegations that the confession was not given freely or voluntarily. That’s where physical evidence and eyewitness testimony come into play.

As far as where you are and the problem with officers who create confessions, I can only assume and hope that those same officers were charged and convicted of their gross misconduct. If not, what do you base your allegations on?

Your observations that a defendant without counsel gets taken advantage of more often than not in your locale would certainly be a very good reason to always have representation in your jurisdiction or any others like it. I just can't honestly say that I have had the same experience in this part of Wisconsin. Perhaps I'm naive as to what happens in other jurisdictions and can certainly only speak from my experience where I have worked.

As to your statement that deception is sanctioned by the US Supreme Court, you are partially correct. I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part but there are limits on what a police officer can lie about in trying to obtain an admission. Obviously a police officer can't lie to the person and say they will not get charged if they confess or promise to get the charges reduced and so on. I knew what you meant but did want to point that out.

I said that the (US) Supreme Court affords no special Constitutional rights to juveniles. Certainly states can be more stringent and apparently Pennsylvania is one of them.

My comments about profiling are not naive but fact. Tell me of one person ever convicted because the initial legal reason for the contact was based upon a profile. I said, just as you have said, that an officer has to have a legal reason for the initial contact and a subject's profile is not a legal reason. I am here to tell you that I can't always find a legal reason to stop someone. A majority of the time? Maybe. All the time? Nope.

I understand I erred when I said probable cause was needed for traffic stop. It was an important oversight in terminology. I do have to ask you though how are any searches easier to defend after the fact? I'm not sure what you are referring to and would be interested in your response.

Finally, of course if an officer gets into legal trouble they'll hire an attorney. Who else would you hire to defend yourself if you're not guilty and being charged with a criminal act? I'm not sure we disagree on that one. Also, I would imagine that the reason police officers might be the biggest "sticklers" for their constitutional rights is because of their familiarity with them. I imagine a defense attorney would be the same way too. I would also venture to guess that a doctor who is receiving medical care would be construed as being a "stickler". Or perhaps a beautician who is getting their hair done may also be viewed as a "stickler".

Again, my original intention of my first response was to counter what LakeRat had said. Some of what he said was opinionated or at the very least loose facts presented with swayed cantor.

There, I have presented my closing argument and know that the defense attorney will always has the last word! LOL. Counsel?

Pat

[LakeRat]

LOL NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO..............the jury has the last word!

[TangledAngler]

Punch, you must be law enforcement. If so, what kind?

First of all, I have many friends, relatives and clients that are law enforcement officers. Every single one of them has admitted to me that they would color the truth to avoid embarrassment, to convict certain persons they know are guilty and to protect other law enforcement officers (with whom they are friendly). I agree that there are good ones and there are bad ones. The question is how do you define good and bad.

I will never say good cops or bad cops are the rule. One thing I learned over the years, there are no rigid rules in our criminal justice system. Cops lie, witnesses lie, lawyers lie. It's certainly not a perfect system.

About confessions: You're analysis overlooks the nature of contrived confessions. Since you don't argue that it doesn't happen, I assume you agree that it does happen. Why aren't all confessions taped? You know that answer. You claim that good officers also develop evidence to corroborate the confession. Personally, I think it works in the reverse order. I think evidence is uncovered and the confession ironically mirrors the evidence. By the way, frequently the alleged confession is the only piece of evidence that gets the conviction. Oftentimes, there is no corroborating evidence.

Suggesting that a defendant can retract his testimony is a joke. If a cop says the defendant said something, most juries consider that the gospel truth. Recanting the testimony, long after he allegedly confessed, just makes it look like the defendant is trying to cover his butt. The cops control the timing, not the defendant.

As I'm sure you're aware, allegations of involuntary confessions virtually never succeed. It's virtually impossible to prove confessions were coerced or fabricated. It's the cops word vs. the defendant. Sure would make it easier if all confessions were recorded. Please at least admit that. For the same reasons, convicting cops for this type of conduct is equally difficult. I know copys lie for a variety of reasons, I've had video surveillance of an incident that proved they lied. Also, believe it or not, not all my clients are guilty and I do believe some of them. Plus, other attorneys, DA's and judges know who the liars are.

Although I've never practiced in WI, I would bet my salary that defendant out there would be much better off with counsel as opposed to trying a case on their own. We have an adversay system and like it or not, law enforcement is the adversary of the defendant.

I am not partially correct about deception being sanctioned by the Supreme Court. I am absolutely correct. Cops can and do lie during interviews with a client including about not charging a defendant with crimes or reducing the charges to get a confession. Cops don't have the authority to make those promises, prosecutors do. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book. The morality of lying about those things may be shaky but it does happen and it is legal.

About profiling. It's really easy for you to challenged me to name one person convicted as a result of profiling. Let me ask you this: Do you really think a cop would ever admit that? It's a very difficult argument to win because no cop is going to admit that. I've had alot of searches suppressed over the years and never did a cop admit under oath that he conducted an illegal search. My guess is that it will never happen. Most cops believe the ends justifies the means. When someone is illegally stopped, there must be a reason. You tell me what they are.

As to my comment that searches are easier to defend after the fact, here goes:

Suppose a stop of a vehicle or a search of a dwelling uncovers drugs. It's not hard to come up with a valid reason to make that stop and/or search after the drugs are found that it would be before the search was conducted. My experience is that most drug users hide their drugs. I only wish I had a buck for every "plain view" search or search incident to arrest or every Terry stop that turned up drugs. I'd retire at 40. Once the drugs are found, the ends justify the means. It's much easier to come up with a reason that will pass constitutional muster after the search has been done. Again, who will the judge believe, the drug user or the cop? We all know that answer.

As to why cops are such sticklers for their constituional rights, I'm sure there are a variety of reasons. One fo them is that they want to make sure every possible tactic is employed to win their case. I personally loved your comment "Who else would you hire to defend yourself if you're not guilty and being charged with a criminal act?" News Flash: Most of my clients, including the cops, are guilty, to some degree.

What I said here certainly doesn't occur in the majority of the cases. It does, however, happen. Because of that risk, my advice is to always have an attorney present when meeting with law enforcement. The purpose of an interview to to obtain information. All an attorney will do is make sure the information was properly obtained.


Punch, I'm not attacking you. I do believe that your opinions are heavily colored in favor of law enforcement. I've been a prosecutor and a defense attorney. I have admiration for a number of cops and lawyers. There are alo cops and lawyers that are lying cheats. I like to think that I have a pretty objective perspective. I just believe that your opinions don't even consider that police power is abused. If you are a law enforcement officer and you truly have never colored the truth while testifying, took advantage of a pro se defendant or misrepresented things to a suspect, you should be commended. I honestly believe and I know alot of judges and DA's also believe, that you are the minority.