PDA

View Full Version : "Stop! Police, we need your vehicle" Is this possible?



Cyrix142
06-13-2005, 12:54 PM
Like it happens in the movies can a police officers approach someone and take their vehicle for "offical business"? I was watching a cop movie and they said "police stop this vehicle we need this for police business". and they took the guys car.

Can that be done in real life, or is it just a hollywood thing..?

DaveinUtah
06-13-2005, 12:59 PM
Can this be done? Possibly. Would it be done? Probably not. There are laws against "Failure to obey a lawful order." such as asking to use a civilians car, but the circumstances would have to be unbelievable for this to happen.

jakflak
06-13-2005, 01:40 PM
Yes, it's theoretically possible, but I can't think of any scenario in which an officer would actually do it.

retired
06-13-2005, 01:46 PM
I know of no law in California that allows an officer to use or confiscate a vehicle belonging to a private person for their use, no matter what the situation is. :)

jakflak
06-13-2005, 01:51 PM
I know of no law in California that allows an officer to use or confiscate a vehicle belonging to a private person for their use, no matter what the situation is. :)

It's covered federally under Posse Comitatus, 18 USC 1385. The whole helping the good guys thing.

fredlgd
06-13-2005, 01:51 PM
Yes, it's theoretically possible, but I can't think of any scenario in which an officer would actually do it.

Can't really speak about the US Laws, but I guess it's more theoretically possible and easy if your nickname is Mel Gibson! ;)

SuperSix5
06-13-2005, 02:12 PM
Pfft, Mel Gibson would get my car over my dead body :D

usafcop64528
06-13-2005, 02:20 PM
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly
authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses
any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or
otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than two years, or both.


How does this apply to commandeering a vehicle??? Posse Comitatus specifies that military cannot be used on civilians except when the President declares martial law.

ProWriter
06-13-2005, 03:07 PM
I believe the State, under the 10th Amendment, may exercise its police power through the necessary "taking" of private property, under justified emergency situations. I believe it falls within its power of eminent domain, pursuant to which the government may, under certain circumstances, even take your land and your home for its assessed value, whether or not you wish to sell.

jerrymaccauley
06-13-2005, 03:33 PM
We aren't taking someones vehicle, or any other property, without court authorization or an arrest. The liability of using someones car for a law enforcement purpose is so great, I doubt that anyone would even try it.

Delta784
06-13-2005, 03:37 PM
I don't enjoy getting into pursuits when I'm driving a brand-new CVPI with all the necessary emergency equipment, I'm sure as hell not going to initiate a pursuit while I'm driving someone else's piece of **** 1987 Camry. :D

mdcop4life
06-13-2005, 03:49 PM
Like it happens in the movies can a police officers approach someone and take their vehicle for "offical business"? I was watching a cop movie and they said "police stop this vehicle we need this for police business". and they took the guys car.

Can that be done in real life, or is it just a hollywood thing..?

This is called Carjacking! Unless you are going to die and you must get in that car.......it is called a felony. If anyone says anything different on here...either they are not a cop.....or they don't have a clue what the law says in their state.

DaveinUtah
06-13-2005, 04:10 PM
This is called Carjacking! Unless you are going to die and you must get in that car.......it is called a felony. If anyone says anything different on here...either they are not a cop.....or they don't have a clue what the law says in their state.

This IS NOT called carjacking. Makes me wonder if mdcop4life IS a cop :rolleyes:

I've highlighted the more pertinent parts of the article.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2118242/

Can the Police Commandeer Your Car?
What else could they ask you to do?
By Daniel Engber
Posted Friday, May 6, 2005, at 3:50 PM PT



A pilot from central Kansas almost died last Friday after being asked by the local sheriff to help out with a manhunt. He had just located the suspect from his Cessna 150 airplane when a gunshot fired from below hit him in the forehead. The pilot (who somehow managed to avoid serious injury) has told police, "You need me again, you call me." Could he have refused to help the cops or to let them use his vehicle?

It depends on the local laws, but in many places the answer would be no. Many states and cities have laws on the books that make it a misdemeanor offense to refuse aid to a police officer. And legal precedents suggest that the obligation to help out with an arrest extends to giving cops the use of your plane, your car, or anything else that might come in handy.
Policemen used to commandeer cars more often. As recently as 40 years ago, New York City cops on foot would routinely flag down taxis when they needed to bring arrested criminals back to the station house.


In the 1920s, a New York cop hopped on the running board of a yellow taxi and demanded that its driver chase another car. The cabbie took off, but another car cut in front of him, and he was killed in the crash. A legal battle ensued over the extent of the obligation to aid a police officer and over the question of whether the cabbie's widow deserved payment under workers'-compensation law.

The New York state court referred to English common law in its discussion of the case. At least as far back as the 13th century, the "hue and cry" system compelled private citizens to join in the pursuit of a criminal, and the Statute of Winchester from 1285 even requires that every man keep appropriate instruments on hand, in case he's called to action. Among the tools listed are "a Breastplate of Iron, a Sword, a Knife, and a Horse."

The court ruled that the taxi was analogous to the horse mentioned in the Statute of Winchester: "The horse has yielded to the motorcar as an instrument of pursuit and flight.

jerrymaccauley
06-13-2005, 04:35 PM
If you believe the media did a thorough job of researching that article, then you have never intentionally placed a citizen in jeopardy. Rendering aid in extreme circumstances does not allow the police the authority to "commandeer" a vehicle for law enforcement purposes. A life or death scenario would probably be excused by both the courts and the agency. But taking someones car to catch a bad guy does not apply. And don't even think of telling the driver to get into a pursuit. That "reckless disregard for human life" will getyou fired at least, sued at best or, incarcerated at the worst.

jakflak
06-13-2005, 06:12 PM
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly
authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses
any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or
otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than two years, or both.


How does this apply to commandeering a vehicle??? Posse Comitatus specifies that military cannot be used on civilians except when the President declares martial law.

That only applies to the military, not the police. It says you can't use the military under posse comitatus.

1sgkelly
06-13-2005, 07:10 PM
How about to get a baby to the hospital in a natural disaster, or when other means are not readily available?
:confused:

thayer123abc
06-13-2005, 07:34 PM
Can't really speak about the US Laws, but I guess it's more theoretically possible and easy if your nickname is Mel Gibson! ;)


or you are Will Smith and the car you are taking belongs to Dan Marino (Bad Boys 2) :rolleyes:

USAcop
06-13-2005, 07:39 PM
We had a pursuit with a stolen vehicle and the driver bailed.

We were all out on foot searching for the suspect.

A citizen spotted the suspect about a mile down the road and flagged us down. We were a long distance from our cars. I asked the citizen if he could drive us where he saw the suspect. He readily agreed.

The suspect sure was surprised when we approached him. :)

retired
06-13-2005, 07:53 PM
That only applies to the military, not the police. It says you can't use the military under posse comitatus.

And nowhere does it give state officers the authority to confiscate a vehicle from a private person. :)

haus409
06-13-2005, 10:05 PM
How about to get a baby to the hospital in a natural disaster, or when other means are not readily available?
:confused:

That type of very unlikely event would probably be the ONLY way I would even think about trying something like that. But, like previously posted, thats a direct life or death situation, unlike chasing a suspect. I've honestly never researched whether its legal or not to order someone to hand over their car, but the civil liabilities alone are enough to scare me from it.

Cruiser
06-13-2005, 11:01 PM
While is IS legal in some states I am sure I think the only cops that would do this would be a gung-ho rookie who is about to be fired for extreme stupidity or if I was on a foot pursuit of a BG that just killed my partner and he hi-jacked a car. Then it is to hell with the job I want his butt and the dept might back me up but I doubt it in which case you hope the news media makes it such a neat deal they can't fire you which means you better not break anything and better catch the BG. If I remember correctly back in 1976 a Capt. on my Dept 'borrowed' a civilian's car and the only thing that saved his *** is that he was #3 man in the dept. :rolleyes:

davidh304
06-14-2005, 04:57 AM
A few cops were outside a club on Thug Night and stopped a pickup truck. They were all on foot and one on a bike. Situation goes sour and they almost shoot the driver, pickup begins to take off.


Bike cop pedals his *** off, cops run but the truck is hauling ***.


JIT mobile flies up to them and locks the brakes up, squealing to a stop. This car is way ghetto fabulous. Purple metallic paint scheme that changes colors when the light hits it different ways. Big flashy 20 inch rims. Those doors that don't open out but open straight up, like on a Lamborghini. Pure thug.

Driver tells the cops "get in." Cops pile in the front in the back. Car takes off chasing the pickup. Cop in the front snatches up a loaded handgun in the front, passes it off to a cop in the back and tell him to "put that somewhere." Cop unloads it and stashes it in a rear seat pocket.


Now the cops that didn't get in the car, called out on the radio that this pickup took off from them but didn't mention anything about JIT car. So cops are getting on the radio and getting to the area to get the pickup.


Well, the cops in the car start calling out the location of the pickup. They figure since they aren't in a marked car, Hell they aren't even in a police car that the pursuit policy is out the window. They chase the hell out of this truck through downtown Orlando.

Some marked units catch up to the pick up and light it up. They ask on the radio "where are you guys, we don't see you?" Refering to the cops calling out the suspect vehicles location. Wisely the cops just laughed at each other and the absurdity of the situation and ignored the question.

The pickup stops. Cops start ripping people out and introducing them to the pavement. JIT car stops and our three intrepid heros of the night get out and assist with the pickup truck. More cops show up and they pull a gun out of the truck. No one really noticed where our three cops came from in the heat of the moment.


After a few minutes one of the cops looks at the Thugmobile and realizes it's just kinda hanging around. He asks "who's that?"

"Uh he's undercover....he's with us?"

Cops quickly thank the driver, find out he's a probation officer from New York down on vacation, and send him on his way before anyone figures out what was going on.

My Sgt pulls up and after a minute she asks the officers "hey, where's your recruit?"

"Uh back at the club with the off duty officers."

"Ok can you go back and get him?.............where's your car?"

That's when the story came out, and these three cops went down in local Orlando Police History. My Sgt. is great, and she just laughed.

They never did find out if the driver was an actually leo, probation officer, or just a thug that wanted to play cop for a night. Cops never got in trouble, and had a great story to tell.

mdcop4life
06-14-2005, 07:18 AM
[QUOTE=DaveinUtah]This IS NOT called carjacking. Makes me wonder if mdcop4life IS a cop :rolleyes:

I've highlighted the more pertinent parts of the article.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2118242/

Can the Police Commandeer Your Car?
What else could they ask you to do?
By Daniel Engber
Posted Friday, May 6, 2005, at 3:50 PM PT



A pilot from central Kansas almost died last Friday after being asked by the local sheriff to help out with a manhunt. He had just located the suspect from his Cessna 150 airplane when a gunshot fired from below hit him in the forehead. The pilot (who somehow managed to avoid serious injury) has told police, "You need me again, you call me." Could he have refused to help the cops or to let them use his vehicle?

It depends on the local laws, but in many places the answer would be no. Many states and cities have laws on the books that make it a misdemeanor offense to refuse aid to a police officer. And legal precedents suggest that the obligation to help out with an arrest extends to giving cops the use of your plane, your car, or anything else that might come in handy.
Policemen used to commandeer cars more often. As recently as 40 years ago, New York City cops on foot would routinely flag down taxis when they needed to bring arrested criminals back to the station house.


In the 1920s, a New York cop hopped on the running board of a yellow taxi and demanded that its driver chase another car. The cabbie took off, but another car cut in front of him, and he was killed in the crash. A legal battle ensued over the extent of the obligation to aid a police officer and over the question of whether the cabbie's widow deserved payment under workers'-compensation law.

The New York state court referred to English common law in its discussion of the case. At least as far back as the 13th century, the "hue and cry" system compelled private citizens to join in the pursuit of a criminal, and the Statute of Winchester from 1285 even requires that every man keep appropriate instruments on hand, in case he's called to action. Among the tools listed are "a Breastplate of Iron, a Sword, a Knife, and a Horse."

The court ruled that the taxi was analogous to the horse mentioned in the Statute of Winchester: "The horse has yielded to the motorcar as an instrument of pursuit and flight.

mdcop4life
06-14-2005, 07:20 AM
We had a pursuit with a stolen vehicle and the driver bailed.

We were all out on foot searching for the suspect.

A citizen spotted the suspect about a mile down the road and flagged us down. We were a long distance from our cars. I asked the citizen if he could drive us where he saw the suspect. He readily agreed.

The suspect sure was surprised when we approached him. :)

Asking for a ride in an extreme situation....is much different then "taking command" over someone's vehicle. Don't you agree?

umtkny
06-14-2005, 07:53 AM
Like it happens in the movies can a police officers approach someone and take their vehicle for "offical business"? I was watching a cop movie and they said "police stop this vehicle we need this for police business". and they took the guys car.

Can that be done in real life, or is it just a hollywood thing..?

Oh no, honey, non of you cops on this board or any cops anywhere would dare order me to get out my driving vehicle to utitlize it for YOUR job.

There's a difference between asking and ordering. Sorry but I don't take orders from nobody.

7mmMag
06-14-2005, 07:59 AM
I know of this happening only once in my area. A pursuit begins in another county of two burglary suspects. The suspect vehicle is lost out on a county highway, and one of our officers heads out on the most likely highway the suspects would take into our jursidiction, should they choose to come our way.

Sure enough, the officer locates the suspect vehicle just into our county, and initiates another pursuit. Two back-up officers (in one car) set up spike strips as the pursuit comes their way. The suspect vehicle evades the spikes, and turns down a dirt road. Now, the spikes had been set at an intersection. Located at this intersection is a tavern (still open, but near to closing time).

The initial pursuing officer follows the suspect vehicle, and the back-up officers pile into their squad to join the pursuit. Unfortunatly, in their haste, they run over the spike strips. With a disabled squad, and now the initial pursuing officer out ALONE on a foot chase with two bad guys into the woods, the back-up officers run into the tavern, and inform the patrons that they need someone's car, and they need it now. A patron hands over her keys, and the officers take off in her car to the scene of the foot pursuit. Ultimately, the bad guys are taken into custody, minus any injuries to anyone involved.

monstermudder78
06-14-2005, 01:57 PM
Oh no, honey, non of you cops on this board or any cops anywhere would dare order me to get out my driving vehicle to utitlize it for YOUR job.

There's a difference between asking and ordering. Sorry but I don't take orders from nobody.

:rolleyes:

Tennsix
06-14-2005, 02:12 PM
Oh no, honey, non of you cops on this board or any cops anywhere would dare order me to get out my driving vehicle to utitlize it for YOUR job.

There's a difference between asking and ordering. Sorry but I don't take orders from nobody.
Hmm... You could be arrested if you refuse to aid an officer. However, an officer would have to have a damned good reason for commandeering your vehicle.

Say... I don't suppose you are the star in this episode of "Traffic Stop Theater" http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/c...er_video3a.html

retired
06-14-2005, 04:35 PM
[QUOTE=Tennsix]Hmm... You could be arrested if you refuse to aid an officer. .

QUOTE]

In California you can only be fined, and even then, I doubt that any judge or DA would touch it with a fifty foot pole. :)

Tennsix
06-14-2005, 04:37 PM
In California you can only be fined, and even then, I doubt that any judge or DA would touch it with a fifty foot pole. :)
Yeah... I can see that. I dont think it would fly here (local jurisdiction) either but the statute is on the books

Kabal
06-14-2005, 07:00 PM
I believe we have a law allowing this in Ohio. I remember being taught int he academy (been a few years) that if we had am emergency situation, ie: violent fleeing suspect, officer needing assistance, etc that we could commondeer a civilian's vehicle. We were told that our department was then responsible for any damage we caused to the vehicle; and we had to be responsible not to leave the civilian driver in a dangerous area where he may be injured by me leaving him there. In fact, the instructor I had told us he had done it once to respond to an airplane crash when he was directing traffic without a cruiser.

I tried to look in the Ohio Revised Code so I could quote the law allowing this. I didn't find it and don't want to have my nose int he book for an hour, sorry. If I come across it I will add it to the post.

But, in Ohio we can but there are a lot of if's and we are responsible big time for doing it so it better be important.

umtkny
06-14-2005, 09:33 PM
Hmm... You could be arrested if you refuse to aid an officer. However, an officer would have to have a damned good reason for commandeering your vehicle.

Say... I don't suppose you are the star in this episode of "Traffic Stop Theater" http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/c...er_video3a.html

Thanks for the laugh but I do not quite think so. Why is that I could get arrested for my refusal to assist an officer? How am I obligated, as a citizen, to aid an officer?

It wouldn't be me sitting at a driver's seat and violating a traffic law and act a fool and get myself tasered and still resist the arrest. And it wouldn't be you ordering me to get out of my car so you can use it for your job either. Like I said, I don't take orders from nobody.

GPOC
06-14-2005, 09:58 PM
Thanks for the laugh but I do not quite think so. Why is that I could get arrested for my refusal to assist an officer? How am I obligated, as a citizen, to aid an officer?

.


I agree here.....I believe I wouldn't have to give up my car if I don't want to and you can't make me :p :p :p



umtkny........now go fix me dinner :D

jakflak
06-14-2005, 10:21 PM
Thanks for the laugh but I do not quite think so. Why is that I could get arrested for my refusal to assist an officer? How am I obligated, as a citizen, to aid an officer?

It wouldn't be me sitting at a driver's seat and violating a traffic law and act a fool and get myself tasered and still resist the arrest. And it wouldn't be you ordering me to get out of my car so you can use it for your job either. Like I said, I don't take orders from nobody.

I don't know about your part of the world, but you can be arrested in Alaska for refusing to aid a police officer.

retired
06-14-2005, 11:50 PM
Thanks for the laugh but I do not quite think so. Why is that I could get arrested for my refusal to assist an officer? How am I obligated, as a citizen, to aid an officer?

It wouldn't be me sitting at a driver's seat and violating a traffic law and act a fool and get myself tasered and still resist the arrest. And it wouldn't be you ordering me to get out of my car so you can use it for your job either. Like I said, I don't take orders from nobody.

Theoretically in California there is a law that says you can be fined for not aiding an officer, but I have never seen it happen.

Tennsix
06-15-2005, 01:26 AM
Thanks for the laugh but I do not quite think so. Why is that I could get arrested for my refusal to assist an officer? How am I obligated, as a citizen, to aid an officer?

It wouldn't be me sitting at a driver's seat and violating a traffic law and act a fool and get myself tasered and still resist the arrest. And it wouldn't be you ordering me to get out of my car so you can use it for your job either. Like I said, I don't take orders from nobody.
Indiana Criminal Code 35-44-3-7
Refusal to aid an officer
Sec. 7. A person who, when ordered by a law enforcement officer to assist the officer in the execution of the officer's duties, knowingly or intentionally, and without a reasonable cause, refuses to assist commits refusal to aid an officer, a Class B misdemeanor.

Indiana Criminal Code IC 35-44-3-3
Resisting Law Enforcment
Sec. 3. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally:
(1) forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with a law enforcement officer or a person assisting the officer while the officer is lawfully engaged in the execution of his duties as an officer;
(2) forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with the authorized service or execution of a civil or criminal process or order of a court; or

Class D felony if:
(A) the offense is described in subsection (a)(3) and the person uses a vehicle to commit the offense

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar44/ch3.html

ProWriter
06-15-2005, 10:41 AM
Sec. 7 says "without a reasonable cause." I'd assume that preferring to continue on my way to work and give my presentation on time rather than missing it and having my car wrecked in a pursuit constitutes "reasonable cause." I can't see that applying to anything other than refusing to pick up the phone to call for police assistance upon orders to do so, or refusing to hand over your keys to unlock an exit door (etc) to let the officer effect a pursuit, and so forth.

Sec. 3 would seem to apply to actively resisting the exercise of LE action against yourself, or actively interfering with LE action against another person, as opposed to passively refusing to assist LE and simply refusing to give up your car when the LE action has nothing to do with you, in the first place.

Tennsix
06-15-2005, 10:51 AM
That is something the prosecutor would interpret. RLE is applicable.

In, Indiana one may not resist a lawful order or an arrest simply because they do not agree with it.

ProWriter
06-15-2005, 11:08 AM
That is something the prosecutor would interpret. In, Indiana one can not resist a lawful order or an arrest simply because they do not agree with it. That's not what I'm saying 10-6. Lawful orders come in many forms, and apply to everyone (bystanders, etc) equally, as well as to the actual subject of any LE action. Still, I doubt the order to "give me your car" issued to an uninvolved party is much more lawful than the order "Hey you up there, across the street! Stop looking out your window and get out here in your pajamas right now to assist me." As I said, I think the statute you cited applies only to something like "Hey you up there, across the street! Dial 911 and tell them 'officer needs assistance' immediately!"

LE may, under the State's police power, in many circumstances, be entitled to help themselves to your unoccupied car or boat, but not to take it from you forcibly, or under threat of arrest, if you have nothing to do with the original exercise of LE action.

"Resisting" arrest is a totally different story, because we're talking here about someone who has absolutely nothing to do with the original exercise of LE authority. Yes, in most places, you even have to submit to an UNlawful arrest and address the issue of unlawfulness in court, after the fact.

Tennsix
06-15-2005, 11:13 AM
I do understand what you mean. Indiana has a very broad definaition of "resisting". Click on the link and read the entire code.

As I indicated in an earlier post, I dont think it would fly in my area. However, the law is on the books.

retired
06-15-2005, 11:26 AM
Sec. 7 says "without a reasonable cause." I'd assume that preferring to continue on my way to work and give my presentation on time rather than missing it and having my car wrecked in a pursuit constitutes "reasonable cause." I can't see that applying to anything other than refusing to pick up the phone to call for police assistance upon orders to do so, or refusing to hand over your keys to unlock an exit door (etc) to let the officer effect a pursuit, and so forth.

Sec. 3 would seem to apply to actively resisting the exercise of LE action against yourself, or actively interfering with LE action against another person, as opposed to passively refusing to assist LE and simply refusing to give up your car when the LE action has nothing to do with you, in the first place.

It appears to me that sec. 7, "reasonable cause" is an out for anyone who wishes not to get involved.

Tennsix
06-15-2005, 11:33 AM
Well, that is why there is a law. A lot of people would graciously decline to help.

The prosecutor and the courts would interpret

ProWriter
06-15-2005, 11:54 AM
It appears to me that sec. 7, "reasonable cause" is an out for anyone who wishes not to get involved.To me, the purpose of that wording is precisely to distinguish active "invlovement" that represents too great a potential risk to mandate from passive "invlovement" that represents no such risk. If you're ordered to simply unlock the back door to allow a poliice pursuit to continue, or if you're ordered to call 911 for backup, or to slide a radio across the floor back to within the officer's reach if he's holding down a subject that he's unable to cuff, or if he's pinned under a vehicle (etc), you should be charged under the statute if you fail to comply. Same if you do anything to prevent LE from "taking" your unoccupied vehicle if LE gets into it before you do, as opposed to simply driving off after LE orders you to give up your car for their use. So, I don't think "reasonable cause" is an automatic out in many situations, but almost always, in the case of any order to relinquish a vehicle, where the driver is not the subject of the original LE action.

Tennsix
06-15-2005, 12:01 PM
Delineate the difference in commandeering an unoccupied car versus occupied.

In the case of taking someone

ProWriter
06-15-2005, 03:22 PM
[QUOTE=Tennsix]Delineate the difference in commandeering an unoccupied car versus occupied. In the case of taking someone

Tennsix
06-15-2005, 03:38 PM
Your reasoning is sound and I an not qualified to argue the spirit of the statute. Your interpretation of the law is just that, an interpretation. Someone else can view it a little diffrently.

A literal reading of the text would allow for such a seizure. The points you are arguing would be hashed out between attorneys, not a between a cop and a motorist.

ProWriter
06-15-2005, 03:54 PM
Your reasoning is sound and I an not qualified to argue the spirit of the statute. Your interpretation of the law is just that, an interpretation. Someone else can view it a little diffrently. A literal reading of the text would allow for such a seizure. The points you are arguing would be hashed out between attorneys, not a between a cop and a motorist. No problem, 10-6, but I don't think it's meaningful to say that in a discussion about statutes, because that can apply to any element under discussion, rendering the entire conversation meaningless. For example, someone could suggest that a statute using the word "property" didn't include "vehicle," or that "vehicle" didn't include "marine vehicles," etc. Those (invalid) points would also have to wait for judicial resolution if someone actually raised them, but for the purpose of discussion, that's exactly what we're discussing: "statutory interpretation." In the field, you CAN do whatever you wish, including bash someone's skull in for looking at you funny; this is about what you MAY (and may not) do, legally. Granted, any legal issue raised would require judicial resolution.

If you really want to split hairs, I also believe LE would even be permitted to "extract" a citizen, using reasonable force to comandeer the vehicle after a verbal refusal, but as long as the person's only objection were verbal (without any actual physical attempt to refuse by his overt actions), neither LE nor the citizen would be in violation of law, even though the citizen could have legally just driven off, as long as he did so safely, before LE put hands on him or his property.

Tennsix
06-15-2005, 03:59 PM
Just call me a cab... :cool:

GPOC
06-15-2005, 06:50 PM
Ask the guy in Maryland how is boat is after helping 3 officers yesterday on the water. The fat bastard(300lbs.) they were trying to save made the 20,000 dollar boat sink when they pulled him aboard. Man,I bet he was ****ed :D

Tattoo'd Angel
06-16-2005, 03:33 AM
Just call me a cab... :cool:
OK, you're a cab. :D

itnstalln
06-17-2005, 11:15 PM
Try quoting me from the law....and then talk to me later!

Would the cases cited even be relevent being so old?

usafcop64528
06-19-2005, 02:25 AM
That only applies to the military, not the police. It says you can't use the military under posse comitatus.
"POSSE COMITATUS ACT" (18 USC 1385): A Reconstruction Era criminal law proscribing use of Army (later, Air Force) to "execute the laws" except where expressly authorized by Constitution or Congress. Limit on use of military for civilian law enforcement also applies to Navy by regulation. Dec '81 additional laws were enacted (codified 10 USC 371-78) clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies--including the Coast Guard--especially in combating drug smuggling into the United States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft, intelligence, tech aid, surveillance, etc.) while generally prohibiting direct participation of DoD personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests). For example, Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETS) serve aboard Navy vessels and perform the actual boardings of interdicted suspect drug smuggling vessels and, if needed, arrest their crews). Positive results have been realized especially from Navy ship/aircraft involvement.


This has nothing whatsoever to do with a civilian officer commandeering a vehicle.

jakflak
06-19-2005, 03:02 PM
This has nothing whatsoever to do with a civilian officer commandeering a vehicle.

That's because that's someone's summary of Posse Comiatus, not the act itself. Posse Comitatus (among other things) gives police officers the authority to deputise anyone over the age of 15 within their jurisdition for police assistance.

What you're quoting is just the portion that applies to the military, Chapter 263, Section 15. You're quoting the exception to the act, not the act itself.

http://fluxview.com/library/government_documents/Posse_Comitatus_Act.pdf

retired
06-19-2005, 06:39 PM
That's because that's someone's summary of Posse Comiatus, not the act itself. Posse Comitatus (among other things) gives police officers the authority to deputise anyone over the age of 15 within their jurisdition for police assistance.

What you're quoting is just the portion that applies to the military, Chapter 263, Section 15. You're quoting the exception to the act, not the act itself.

http://fluxview.com/library/government_documents/Posse_Comitatus_Act.pdf


The Posse Comitatus Act and the definition of Posse Comitatus are two different issues. The POSSE COMITATUS ACT of 1878 does not apply to civilian LE deputizing or commandeering civilians for LE purposes. That is a state right and the POSSE COMITATUS ACT of 1878 only applies to the military performing domestic LE functions. Two separate issues. :) :)

usafcop64528
06-20-2005, 12:35 AM
That's because that's someone's summary of Posse Comiatus, not the act itself. Posse Comitatus (among other things) gives police officers the authority to deputise anyone over the age of 15 within their jurisdition for police assistance.

What you're quoting is just the portion that applies to the military, Chapter 263, Section 15. You're quoting the exception to the act, not the act itself.

http://fluxview.com/library/government_documents/Posse_Comitatus_Act.pdf
Dude, read what you sent....it specifically says IN THE DOCUMENT YOU HAD THE LINK FOR that the posse comitatus act is to prevent using military on civilians.... read the WHOLE document. Posse Comitatus does refer to deputizing, however the Posse Comitatus ACT refers to using military on civilians. NOTHING MORE.

jakflak
06-20-2005, 12:05 PM
Dude, read what you sent....it specifically says IN THE DOCUMENT YOU HAD THE LINK FOR that the posse comitatus act is to prevent using military on civilians.... read the WHOLE document. Posse Comitatus does refer to deputizing, however the Posse Comitatus ACT refers to using military on civilians. NOTHING MORE.

For the third and final time, I'm going to answer you. If you choose to just look until you see what you're trying to prove, we'll just have to agree to disagree. The military clause is the EXCEPTION to posse comitatus, not the act itself. If you want to see what the act says, READ THE ACT instead of repeatedly quoting the exception clause to me.

retired
06-20-2005, 12:51 PM
For the third and final time, I'm going to answer you. If you choose to just look until you see what you're trying to prove, we'll just have to agree to disagree. The military clause is the EXCEPTION to posse comitatus, not the act itself. If you want to see what the act says, READ THE ACT instead of repeatedly quoting the exception clause to me.

Will you agree that the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was written to prohibit the military from performing domestic LE? Will you agree that its only purpose was to prevent the military from acting as a domestic LE agency? Will you agree that it doesn't confer any power on local agencies to deputize civilians for LE purposes? If you recognize that, then you most certainly agree that each state has its own statutues for deputizing or calling upon civilians to aid LE, and none of those state statutes powers are derived from the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878?

Nowhere in the act does it mention that states or local agencies have the power or authority to deputize civilians to aid LE.

What is it that you are missing?

jakflak
06-20-2005, 01:34 PM
Will you agree that the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was written to prohibit the military from performing domestic LE? Will you agree that its only purpose was to prevent the military from acting as a domestic LE agency? Will you agree that it doesn't confer any power on local agencies to deputize civilians for LE purposes? If you recognize that, then you most certainly agree that each state has its own statutues for deputizing or calling upon civilians to aid LE, and none of those state statutes powers are derived from the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878?

Nowhere in the act does it mention that states or local agencies have the power or authority to deputize civilians to aid LE.

What is it that you are missing?

No, I don't agree. But I think neither one of us is going to convince the other so let's just agree to disagree.

Puget Sound
06-20-2005, 02:22 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_%28Common_Law%29

In common law, posse comitatus (Latin for "the power of the county") referred to the authority wielded by the county sheriff to conscript any able-bodied male over the age of fifteen to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon; compare hue and cry. It is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.

With modern methods of law enforcement, the posse comitatus is generally obsolete. The power presumably continues to exist in those U.S. states that have not repealed it by statute, however. Resort to the posse comitatus figures often in the plots of Western movies, where the body of men recruited is frequently referred to as a posse. Based on this usage, the word posse has come to be used colloquially to refer to various teams, cliques, or gangs. In a number of states, especially in the western United States, sheriffs and other law enforcement agencies have called their civilian auxiliary groups "posses." The Lattimer Massacre of 1897 illustrated the danger of such groups, and thus ended their use in situations of civil unrest.

This use of the word became less frequent after a TV talk show scandal about a group of young men in Los Angeles, California who called themselves the "Spur Posse," apparently after the San Antonio Spurs. They achieved notoriety through a competition involving scoring points for sexual intercourse, and became the subject of a minor moral panic in 1994.

In the United States, a Federal statute known as the Posse Comitatus Act forbids the use of the military of the United States from being used as a posse comitatus or for law enforcement purposes.

The practical disuse of the posse comitatus, and its continued twilight existence as a theoretical legal power, is like the militia a subject for the debates about the meaning of the U.S. Constitution Second Amendment.

All right, the important sections are in bold. I'm going to speak simply. It should end the argument, but God knows it won't.

The PRINCIPLE of posse comitatus allows a sheriff to summon an individual over the age of 15 to assist him in pursuing felons. That is the definition of the words--as you can see in the first bold paragraph.

The second bold paragraph refers to a statute in the United States that is called the Posse Comitatus Act. The act itself IS NOT what gives an officer the power to summon a civilian to help him pursue a felon.

Posse comitatus comes from COMMON LAW. It is a very old English custom. Common law is basically judge-made law. A judge rules that this is what the law says and that sets a PRECEDENT for future incidents.

So yes, posse comitatus DOES EXIST in the United States. But the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 has NOTHING to do with summoning an able-bodied 15-year-old to help you chase down a felon.

And yes, I READ THE ACT. I didn't read someone's summary, I didn't read the exceptions, I read the whole act.

End of topic. Or not.

1sgkelly
06-20-2005, 08:37 PM
Hey Puget, I agree with you.
:)
Now it's the two of us against the world.
:cool:
I think we're gona get creamed!
:eek:

usafcop64528
06-20-2005, 09:32 PM
For the third and final time, I'm going to answer you. If you choose to just look until you see what you're trying to prove, we'll just have to agree to disagree. The military clause is the EXCEPTION to posse comitatus, not the act itself. If you want to see what the act says, READ THE ACT instead of repeatedly quoting the exception clause to me.
I am reading the act and quoting it...the only exception to the act is if martial law is declared...you just don't see it....

usafcop64528
06-20-2005, 09:36 PM
Hey Puget, I agree with you.
:)
Now it's the two of us against the world.
:cool:
I think we're gona get creamed!
:eek:
I agree with both of you, I too looked up the actual act, online, and in text manuels at the squadron....Some people are pretty dense though.

retired
06-20-2005, 09:50 PM
I agree with both of you, I too looked up the actual act, online, and in text manuels at the squadron....Some people are pretty dense though.

I think that he merely is confusing the term "Posse Comitatus" with the federal law known as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

usafcop64528
06-20-2005, 11:04 PM
I think that he merely is confusing the term "Posse Comitatus" with the federal law known as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.
Yeah, but it baffles me why he can't see that....or why he won't admit it...whatever the case may be... :confused:

retired
06-20-2005, 11:06 PM
Yeah, but it baffles me why he can't see that....or why he won't admit it...whatever the case may be... :confused:

I agree that it is indeed baffling. :eek: :eek:

Puget Sound
06-21-2005, 01:20 AM
I think that he merely is confusing the term "Posse Comitatus" with the federal law known as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.
That's exactly the problem. I really don't get it. *scratches head*

ProWriter
06-22-2005, 02:02 PM
Back to the topic of LE commandeering personal property in emergencies:
"Lance Cpl. William Waddell, a U.S. Marine, was at work in Washington, D.C., when his wife called to say police commandeered their apartment for a stakeout." (From the Laurel officer killed in LOD story on the main page.)

angel_haunted
06-23-2005, 04:12 PM
We aren't taking someones vehicle, or any other property, without court authorization or an arrest. The liability of using someones car for a law enforcement purpose is so great, I doubt that anyone would even try it.


And you do live in this world, right??? Never say never! I assure you, someone would try it. I do not put anything past anyone now days. Not that they would not be an idiot, but it is possible for someone to try it, one day. Just to see what would or would not happen. Sorry, but not all law enforcement are intelligent, sorry peeps, it is sad, but to true.

equinox137
05-24-2006, 02:46 AM
It's covered federally under Posse Comitatus, 18 USC 1385. The whole helping the good guys thing.

I thought Posse Comitatus covers the use of the military in domestic law enforcement . . .

nobody33
05-24-2006, 03:21 AM
Like it happens in the movies can a police officers approach someone and take their vehicle for "offical business"? I was watching a cop movie and they said "police stop this vehicle we need this for police business". and they took the guys car.

Can that be done in real life, or is it just a hollywood thing..?


I did it---- twice. Never while chasing a suspect though. Both cases dispatch food runs, and didn't have room for everything in the car, so I grabbed a UPS truck. That's some dangerous stuff right there.

Centurion44
05-24-2006, 06:21 AM
I thought Posse Comitatus covers the use of the military in domestic law enforcement . . .

Oh Jesus Crisco!! Not only do you revive a thread that's been dead a year, but you don't even read all the replies before doing it. Please, go choke yourself. :mad:

And here's the answer (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcommandeer.html) to the original question.

Jeez...

eman2k5
05-24-2006, 10:48 AM
We aren't taking someones vehicle, or any other property, without court authorization or an arrest. The liability of using someones car for a law enforcement purpose is so great, I doubt that anyone would even try it.

Is that a challenge? :D :) :D hehe

call me farva cause im going to do it hahahahahhaha

1oldsarge
05-24-2006, 02:05 PM
I've never seen it done and the liability against the officer would be HUGE!!!!

Sleuth
05-24-2006, 06:55 PM
Ah, the simple joy of being a Customs Officer. There is a special statute that makes it a felony to fail to assist "an officer of the revenue" when asked. It is one of the many obscure laws we had available, but rarely used. In fact, I never heard of anyone siezing a car for a chase. It may have been used for either boats or airplanes, but usually the people cooperated. Yes, the liability was HUGE!

Another was the law allowing us to "pull down" any building which was built on the international border, and used for smuggling. There are some houses in Maine that straddel the border, where the kitchen is in Canada, and the rest of the house in the US.

Berlioz
05-24-2006, 09:43 PM
I did it---- twice. Never while chasing a suspect though. Both cases dispatch food runs, and didn't have room for everything in the car, so I grabbed a UPS truck. That's some dangerous stuff right there.

Man, all hell breaks loose when dispatch doesn't get their food! :)

wvwarrior
05-25-2006, 08:00 AM
Oh no, honey, non of you cops on this board or any cops anywhere would dare order me to get out my driving vehicle to utitlize it for YOUR job.

There's a difference between asking and ordering. Sorry but I don't take orders from nobody.

What happened to LEO friendly posts? Imagine this, the guy we are chasing (if this is legal) could have just killed someone, what if we we're chasing someone that killed someone close to you? You might sing a different tune.

NSAPoland
05-26-2006, 08:12 PM
Oh no, honey, non of you cops on this board or any cops anywhere would dare order me to get out my driving vehicle to utitlize it for YOUR job.

There's a difference between asking and ordering. Sorry but I don't take orders from nobody.


:mad: WOW :mad:

Your job? Its everyone duty to help out and aid everyone. You got a bad attitude. I don't take orders from nobody sounds so stupid. You need to think before clicking the post button.

Staubb00
05-26-2006, 09:20 PM
Thanks for the laugh but I do not quite think so. Why is that I could get arrested for my refusal to assist an officer? How am I obligated, as a citizen, to aid an officer?

It wouldn't be me sitting at a driver's seat and violating a traffic law and act a fool and get myself tasered and still resist the arrest. And it wouldn't be you ordering me to get out of my car so you can use it for your job either. Like I said, I don't take orders from nobody.


that's a great attitude to have, so why are you posting replies on here anyway :mad:

cst.sb
05-27-2006, 02:38 AM
Its everyone duty to help out and aid everyone.

Didn't Winston Churchill say something like, "The police get paid, to do what every citizen should be doing 24/7". Or something like that?

I tried to find the quote but I couldn't. Sorry folks.

NSAPoland
05-27-2006, 02:04 PM
Didn't Winston Churchill say something like, "The police get paid, to do what every citizen should be doing 24/7". Or something like that?

I tried to find the quote but I couldn't. Sorry folks.

OOO i like that, if you cant find it we will just say you said it. :D

cst.sb
05-27-2006, 10:43 PM
OOO i like that, if you cant find it we will just say you said it. :D

No problem!!! :p