can a police officer detain you put his hands on you and frisk you[search ]because his claim is he needs to?
372793
Yeah, they can pretty much do what ever they want. Right now my brother is sitting in jail because an officer said he kicked a car door into his leg. This is considered assault on an officer, and that is a felony. If he is convicted he could serve 2 to 10 years. It sucks because we can't do anything about it, and it is all because this officer wants to lie.
395949
Boy...tough crowd in here.  Wrong in some cases, too.\n\nYou've got two questions here, so that's how I'll address them.\n\n1.  Is it legal for the police to stop you on the street (in your car, at your home, in the bar, etc.) for no reason?\n\nThe police cannot stop you for no reason.  However, it's entirely possible you don't know what the reason was, or you weren't really "stopped" as the law considers it...the word "stop" has a very significant legal meaning and what you might think of as being stopped by the police might not be seen that way under the law.  Consensual contacts between the police and citizens take place day and night, 24x7, and are approved of by the courts all the time.    \n\n2.  Can the police ask you for ID?\n\nYes.  And in some cases, they can ask you to stand on your head.  If the police are *asking*, then you are free to comply or refuse, as you see fit.  California no longer has a law requiring you to carry identification at all times (and hasn't for close to twenty years) so it would surprise me to find another state that does.\n\nI can just about guarantee you a better answer if you provide the state you're in and the circumstances that bring about this question.
361101
When a persons been arrested he is subject to search incident to that arrest. The search requires no warrant. Who did he ask for a lawyer? It's not the policeman's responsibility to provide the lawyer it's the court that does that. As far as having "grounds" he was under arrest, the officer doesn't need grounds! The search is justified because he is arrested. Whether anything was found has no bearing on whether or not the search was justified. This is the law, the Supreme Court has upheld it. We appreciate the service to our country but that has nothing do do with the crime he was arrested for.\nFurthermore since this person was arrested for filing a false report "lying" how much of his story should we actually believe?
309005
Anything that you do or say to hinder a police officer from doing their job can and will be taking as an obstruction..
518267
yes you have the right, and he has the right to secure a warrant if he has probable cause ( assuming he make a good arguemetive case or a superior does in front of a judge ) andthen only the with a warrant in hand search your car, he can also detain you ( you are not under arrest ) until the warrant arrives. And if after the search he finds nohing but has the warrant you can sue him, ( or the police department ) for illegl search if you can prove that the search, was suspect due to a lack of probable cause ( even if the officer thinks he has it ). the trouble is judges tend to err on the side o the police at times especially if he pulls you over in a high crime / narco trafficing area, he can pretty much argue probable cause basedon those factors alone.
1121097
Let me further clear some things up.\n\nYes, you can place someone under citizen's arrest for a misdemeanor. In fact, that is how the police operate in most instances. Police in most states (including the one I work in) do not have the power to arrest someone for a misdemeanor unless it was committed in the officer's presence. (There are some exceptions to this, such as in domestic violence cases.)\n\nAn battery (most people call it assault) is a misdemeanor. Let's say someone hits you and you want to press charges. You call the police and they arrive. You tell them what happens and that you want to press charges. They will tell you that you have to place them under citizen's arrest. \n\nLet's make something clear: You DO NOT have to physically place them in handcuffs or anything like that. It simply means that you are taking the liability for any repercussions. The police usually have you sign a citizen's arrest form stating you will take the liability. The police then do the rest. \n\nHere is CA law on it:\n\nPenal Code 837 \n\nA private person may arrest another:\n   1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.\n   2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not\nin his presence.\n   3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable\ncause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.
462806
The officers cannot conduct a search without a warrant or without probable cause, unless there are specific special circumstances.\n\nGenerally, the police can pull you over for any suspicion.  Expired tags, no front plates, broken taillight, etc.  If they then "smell" something suspicious (i.e., pot or alcohol), they can then search your car under suspicion of possession or DUI.  If they place you under arrest, they can basically search every inch of your car.\n\nIf they ask if they can search your car YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO SAY NO!!!!!  If you consent to a search, they have the ability to search your entire car.\n\nIf they simply give you a ticket and search your car without consent, they have violated your rights.  If they find any evidence in your car, it cannot be used against you in court.  If they found nothing or no charges were placed against you, you should still make a complait to the police department they were from. It will go in their file and it may help someone else (or you) defend themself in the future.
721645
It doesn't sound like you have a case. Police officers acting under color of law can't be held liable unless they violate your civil rights, and it doesn't sound like they did. They had a reasonable belief that there was a warrant for your arrest, as incorrect as that belief was.
411646
No, the police can't legally stop you "just because"...there must be at least be something known as reasonable suspicion.\n\nHowever, I have almost no idea what your question is because of the way you wrote it.  Any chance you can turn it into something that makes a little more sense?
185039
Your friend still has rights, but generally one of the terms that your friend may have agreed to as part of the agreement for probabtion is that the police can search without cause any time they want as often as they want. Your friend would be subject to the same type of "harrassment," as you put it, if he/she were in jail or prison. The purpose being that, while you friend is not in jail or prison, you friend needs to obey the law at all times to avoid being sent to jail or prison.
720779
Actually when I worked for the police dept, it was against police policy to give a "jump" from the police car.  It can seriously damage the electronics in the police car ( 1000's of dollars worth)\n\nAn officer giving a jump to someone could be wrote up, given a day off without pay or more.\n\nThe police officer will call you a tow truck, or other road service,  they will often call someone else that you want called.
894103
"When is a male officer allowed to touch a bare female breast in a arrest? i was put under arrest and a male officer touched my bare breast in a search... how is that right ? There was no female officer present."\n\nThere is no quick answer to your question.\n\nA law enforcement officer is empowered to conduct a quick "pat down" to ensure his own safety incident to a stop-- he doesn't even have to arrest you.  And there is no same-sex requirement for such searches in the eyes of the law.\n\nThat said, many police departments have regulations that call for same-sex officers to conduct searches whenever possible.  And searches incident to incarceration (that often involve a body cavity search) generally follow stricter guidelines.\n\nBut the power to conduct a search does not create the liberty to grope.  An officer searching a woman should feel under and between breasts (if they are large enough) using a scrunching motion of the hand (not patting) against the clothed body and along any undergarments that might hide something.  Squeezing the breast or touching the area around the nipple is generally not necessary-- although bulky clothing might require it.\n\nIf you were bare-- wearing nothing that could hide a weapon or contraband-- and the officer touched your breasts with his hands as part of the search (not just brushed against you), then you should file a complaint.  If you feel you have enough evidence to prove it, you might even consider filing a civil action in circuit court.  \n\n[This is not legal advice. You should consult a licensed attorney-at-law for legal advice or representation before making decisions that may affect your legal rights.]
50155
You most certainly can until such time that you are examined by a psychiatrist that you were having said episode. The psychiatrist may have to testify in Court as to your mental satate at the time of the arrest.
995952
You didn't say what state you're in, and without that information you're not going to get a good answer.\n\nIn California, police cannot "detain" a witness at all.  A witness has not committed a crime, and is therefore not subject to detention.\n\nIf, in your state, witnesses are allowed to be detained, then I'm fairly certain there are rules that detail how that's supposed to be done.  I would also strongly suspect that the police didn't do anything illegal with your son, even though it's often popular to want to believe they did.\n\nIt's quite possible your son was an outright suspect at first, or perhaps "on the edge" of being a suspect.  He may have been detained for that reason, and through questioning (of both he and the others involved), the police determined he wasn't a suspect at all, and really was a witness.  \n\nBut in California, yes...it's legal to detain a minor at the police station without parents knowing (after all, what if the parents were out of town and couldn't be reached?) and it's equally legal to prevent the parents from having access to the child.
501118
The only thing a law enforcement officer needs to pull someone over is probable cause. Probable cause is a reasonable belief based upon the totality of circumstances that a crime has or is about to take place. In other words, if a cop sees you speeding and clocks you on a radar device exceeding the speed limit, then he can stop you. If he determines that there is a reason to put you in handcuffs for safe transportation the the county detention facility, then he has to be able to articulate in court what that reason was. Harrasment only applies if you cannot be charged with a crime.
785591
Many police are covered under umbrella immunity provisions.\n\nThe police officer needed a malicious reason to arrest you - given that you did not break the law.  A good attorney will file an illegal arrest lawsuit (or maybe a class action lawsuit if this rogue officer has mistreated other people in the same way).
983926
It is illegal for the stores personal to search you without you agreeing to it, you should have exercised your rights and refused the search and let them call a police officer and let him search you and after he was through and didn't find anything on you then I would have sued them for wrongfully detaining me, for assuming without facts or evidence, for public embarrassment and harassment, based on your nationality, maybe even prejudice and discrimination, yeah there's a law suit that can be brought up, or they can settle out of court.