Mid-Air Intercept by ICE

[FlyChicaga]

This has been a subject I am always curious of. I certainly have much appreciation for the knowledge given by those informed individuals. I am irked though.

The mantra is to" know your rights". Then throw in "nuanced", "zealous prosecution", or those behaviors we would likely label as lying and would hardly knows where they stand.

I haven't even mentioned the LEO or other govt officer who engages in illegal behavior. The state of IL mandating consent before filming in a public place is just another thing to make me avoid that state.

There is nothing against filming police officers in public in IL law. It WAS a felony to record a police officer with audio without the officer knowing you were doing so. It was the Eavesdropping law. It has been (is being) overturned. It's original concept was to keep people from secretly taping officers in an attempt to learn our tactics. It's really a dumb law, but in a state like IL where the law sides so heavily with scumbags, I'll take every advantage I can get.

I'm on my phone, so I can't write out all the case law regarding stops and arrest. Just realize that there is case law regarding how us officers on the street can handle a stop with reasonable suspicion, but the rules change as related to ports of entry and border crossings. You can be detained for a lot longer. Also, a dog waking around your plane sniffing it is not a search. There is lots of case law that has ruled as such. It's called "plain smell/sniff."

People bitch and moan that we aren't out catching criminals, then bitch and moan when we stop "upstanding citizens" whose behavior may have been innocent enough, but made us believe criminal activity was afoot. I stop people often who are acting lawfully, but their actions as I observed them led me to suspect otherwise. That's how we catch the guys who hit you on the head and take your iPhone, or steal your golf clubs from the garage when you're at work...
It's nothing personal, but if I want to be aggressive and try to catch the idiots taking your stuff (or the idiots hauling drugs), then I might stop and talk to you once in a while. Don't be an ass and it will be a nice chat, and you'll be on your way.

 

[MikeD]

I'm on my phone, so I can't write out all the case law regarding stops and arrest. .

Got them in threads right here:

http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/recent-case-law-4th-amendment-and-more.130529/

http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/4th-amendment-search-seizure-etc-cont.116174/

 

[NickH]

It's a fine balance that has to be made between protecting one's Constitutional rights and the government interest in protecting its own borders and border areas. There are other questions asked beyond "are you a US citizen?", but its the most common one, mainly just something to break the ice and not make the 3-5 second stop be a silent one thats akin to the Gestapo checking your papers. I mean, the agents are people too and they do their best to be friendly, while maintaining an "alert vigilence".

The difference being?

If I were facing a checkpoint every day I'd be tempted to speak in German and claim to have sighted some Jews down the road.

Of course, I'd be too scared. Really. Just because I have the right to be here, doesn't mean I want to be beaten and dragged from my car like the hate-preacher in Arizona.

 

[Bandit_Driver]

Mike, I could be wrong but I don't believe I have ever seen a 337 carried on any of our aircraft, including those with long range aux tanks installed.

If it were me I would have complied with the minimum and given them no access to search the aircraft or property. I also find it odd that they told him not to mention any of it.

I have a couple items similar but not as bad that, that pissed me off several years ago.

1. flying a turboprop around Alabama I stop to drop of freight. While on the ground I am stopped by and questioned by a Customs official who is asking about the aircraft and why the N number was illegally changed. Of course I am shocked and have told him the aircraft has been that way for years. I also provide him with the Airworthiness Cert and Registration that show the same tail number. He is conviced those are fake as well. He leaves with the docs and tells me no to leave. He comes back sometime later and tells me I am free to go but still doesn't agree on the N number change. The company painted over the old tail number and you can see the outline under the new paint. This pissed me off as I was treated with attitude.

2. Flying a 310 with one locker tank I land at a remote airport to clear customs. The officer shows up and looks around for about 5 minutes and starts asking questions about a false balkhead. Which I tell there isn't one that is a fuel cell in the left wing locker. He then asks where the other one is. I tell him there isn't, of course he calls BS as that would throw the plane out of balance. Of course I tell him it doesn't but he won't hear any of it and thinks he just made his career. He tells me to step away he is going to get his drill and drill into the bulkhead and see what is behind it. Now I am getting pissed. I tell him if you do that you are going to ground the aircraft, rupture the fuel cell, and blow us up. He insists, so I start walking inside and tell him I am gonig to clal the fire department and being a wise ass I tell here the is fuel cap on top that you can open and look in. He ends up not drilling and looking inside an empty tank through the fuel cap thankfully.

3. Same airport as before I land and the Customs comes out the aircraft and wants to inspect the freight. I comply and unload a boxes of their choosing. The Customs agent pulls out a knife and I ask him to be carefull as the freight wood inlays and wire harnesses. Of course he doesn't and damages a couple of harnesses and some of the inlays. WTF. seriously, you have open the box that agressively...

 

[RICHARD5]

There is nothing against filming police officers in public in IL law. It WAS a felony to record a police officer with audio without the officer knowing you were doing so. It was the Eavesdropping law. It has been (is being) overturned. It's original concept was to keep people from secretly taping officers in an attempt to learn our tactics. It's really a dumb law,...

Thanks for clearing that up. You make it sound like taking this law off the books is happening right now. I'll look into it.

...but in a state like IL where the law sides so heavily with scumbags, I'll take every advantage I can get.

I absolutely agree there are enough dumb laws and you guys probably feel your hands are tied and you are putting yourself at further risk because of those unfair laws. But do you mean to say you welcome any law that allows you to legally treat any citizen as an 'unconvicted perp' simply because, well, ya never know who is or isn't the bad guy? I mean, we all are suspect until proven otherwise? I can see how from an operational point LEO might prefer that but how would you reconcile that with our constitutionally protected rights?

Don't be an ass and it will be a nice chat, and you'll be on your way.

I hope you didn't mean me. I genuinely have always supported the men and women in blue. I am curteous and look to be helpful when and where I can. I don't want to sidetrack this thread, it's a good and informative thread. I appreciate the dispensation of informed opinions.

It seems where one speak of being an "ass" another would say they are being cooperitive yet "knowing their rights". I apologize if this sounds like I am creating an adversarial relationship. I only want to get to the bottom of what it means to "know your rights".

It was mentioned the rules may change depending on whether it is CBP, or other fed agency, or state, or local agencies who make the stop. This really confuses me. As pilots we can travel across statelines in the time it takes the general population to drive to the corner market. (not to mention commercial enterprise Vs pleasure) How probable is it that the average citizen would be wholly informed of each state's laws let alone all rules (fed/state/local) which are pertinent to knowing your constitutionally protected rights during a stop?

Lastly, you made mention of those people who "bitch and complain". That is painting with a broad brush. I suspect only a subsect of the general population engages in that behavior. Actually it is offensive to be lumped in with those people by whom you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. To speak of 'all people' in such a manner serves to detract from the subject of this thread. To a hammer everything is a nail, to a LEO everyone is a perp. Is that a fair assessment?

 

[RICHARD5]

http://articles.boston.com/2012-03-...pping-law-eavesdropping-statute-public-places

My immediate question after reading several articles on this ruling is why is this being ruled on several times? I'll look to see why it keeps cropping up. I'd think if it is a dumb law one ruling would be enough.

EDIT: Ok, I think I see why...the legislature doesn't know how to craft legislation. The legislation is too large in scope.

 

[MikeD]

The difference being?

If I were facing a checkpoint every day I'd be tempted to speak in German and claim to have sighted some Jews down the road.

Of course, I'd be too scared. Really. Just because I have the right to be here, doesn't mean I want to be beaten and dragged from my car like the hate-preacher in Arizona.

Come now, we have discussed this many times and have even come to an understanding. You know as well as I do that a Gestapo line of questioning and a BP checkpoint single-question are light years different. And it's different because they aren't checking your papers, just asking a question. Though in your case, they probably would check your paper if you answered truthfully to the question, as from what you write, I gather you to be an LPR, therefore required to have your green card on you at all times. That would be the contract, so to speak, for you to be here legally, not being a citizen and all.

 

[MikeD]

. But do you mean to say you welcome any law that allows you to legally treat any citizen as an 'unconvicted perp' simply because, well, ya never know who is or isn't the bad guy? I mean, we all are suspect until proven otherwise? I can see how from an operational point LEO might prefer that but how would you reconcile that with our constitutionally protected rights?

What he means is treating everyone like they could be a bad guy in terms of "being on the alert" and "never letting one's guard down". And that's merely an officer safety thing, much like there being nothing "routine" about a routine traffic stop. To you, the treatment should be transparent. It certainly doesn't mean be discourteous to people, or rough them up.....not in the least. But I don't know you, and officers cannot afford to be lax with no mental guard up.

I hope you didn't mean me. I genuinely have always supported the men and women in blue. I am curteous and look to be helpful when and where I can. I don't want to sidetrack this thread, it's a good and informative thread. I appreciate the dispensation of informed opinions.

And you get the same treatment in return. Still, the officer will always be mentally alert and not let their guard down, again, because they don't know you.

It seems where one speak of being an "ass" another would say they are being cooperitive yet "knowing their rights". I apologize if this sounds like I am creating an adversarial relationship. I only want to get to the bottom of what it means to "know your rights".

"Being an ass" is attitude towards someone, ass-like attitude. It has NOTHINE to do with nicely or politely declining a consent search.

It was mentioned the rules may change depending on whether it is CBP, or other fed agency, or state, or local agencies who make the stop. This really confuses me. As pilots we can travel across statelines in the time it takes the general population to drive to the corner market. (not to mention commercial enterprise Vs pleasure) How probable is it that the average citizen would be wholly informed of each state's laws let alone all rules (fed/state/local) which are pertinent to knowing your constitutionally protected rights during a stop?

Knowing the law is the responsible of the citizen. Now, generally speaking, laws dont differ much between states, and your Constitutional rights never change, no matter what state you are in.

Lastly, you made mention of those people who "bitch and complain". That is painting with a broad brush. I suspect only a subsect of the general population engages in that behavior. Actually it is offensive to be lumped in with those people by whom you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. To speak of 'all people' in such a manner serves to detract from the subject of this thread. To a hammer everything is a nail, to a LEO everyone is a perp. Is that a fair assessment?

No, it's not a fair assessment. Read my clarification of the comments above.

 

[ChasenSFO]

Which situation? There are many presented in this 6 page thread.

The OPs situation which ended in them disassembling the wing and leaving it for the pilot to repair. If it was a rental the next few days would probably suck for me.

 

[FlyChicaga]

Richard, see MikeD's post. No, I wasn't talking about you. It doesn't bother me if people assert their rights. Trust me, I am a HUGE proponent of the constitution. It's my responsibility to do my job within the scope of the 4th amendment (and the rest of them, too).

Just because I come off as assertive does not mean I'm treating you like an offender. Ok, maybe I am. Thing is, when I walk up to a car, I have no idea who is inside. It could be a banger, a sovereign, or a guy dropping his kids off at school. I treat everyone the same, because when officers let their guard down, they get killed.

That reminds me of a traffic stop not long ago. I am walking up to the vehicle "guarding" my weapon. This guy screams at me, "Do you need to hold your weapon?!!! I'm no criminal! Do you do that to everyone?!" Uh, why yes I do, I don't know you, and I'm not going to get killed just so you don't feel like a hardcore felon.

My comments were more in general than anything. Remain calm, don't be a jerk, and answer questions if you so choose. Being a jerk just doesn't help anyone, because as an officer it raises my suspicion.

Sorry if I'm not being so clear, I'm typing on my iPhone, and it's a PITA.

 

[GX]

Um..... Any particular reason there is 3 officers who were involved in my stop are calling my phone telling me to "Call them back IMMEDIATELY?"

 

[Qutch]

Um..... Any particular reason there is 3 officers who were involved in my stop are calling my phone telling me to "Call them back IMMEDIATELY?"

Yes. Last week we had a minor mishap training a new explosives dog, and we lost the search training car we've been using. But we think we've got the bugs worked out now.

Since you've been such a good sport about this whole thing, ICE was wondering if they could borrow your car this weekend.

@Shiek Yiboudi
.

 

[GX]

Yes. Last week we had a minor mishap training a new explosives dog, and we lost the search training car we've been using. But we think we've got the bugs worked out now.

Since you've been such a good sport about this whole thing, ICE was wondering if they could borrow your car this weekend.

View attachment 19781
@Shiek Yiboudi
.

Is there an OPT-OUT option? Am I under arrest if I do? Being detained? Free to go?

 

[ppragman]

Richard, see MikeD's post. No, I wasn't talking about you. It doesn't bother me if people assert their rights. Trust me, I am a HUGE proponent of the constitution. It's my responsibility to do my job within the scope of the 4th amendment (and the rest of them, too).

Just because I come off as assertive does not mean I'm treating you like an offender. Ok, maybe I am. Thing is, when I walk up to a car, I have no idea who is inside. It could be a banger, a sovereign, or a guy dropping his kids off at school. I treat everyone the same, because when officers let their guard down, they get killed.

That reminds me of a traffic stop not long ago. I am walking up to the vehicle "guarding" my weapon. This guy screams at me, "Do you need to hold your weapon?!!! I'm no criminal! Do you do that to everyone?!" Uh, why yes I do, I don't know you, and I'm not going to get killed just so you don't feel like a hardcore felon.

My comments were more in general than anything. Remain calm, don't be a jerk, and answer questions if you so choose. Being a jerk just doesn't help anyone, because as an officer it raises my suspicion.

Sorry if I'm not being so clear, I'm typing on my iPhone, and it's a PITA.

Regardless of who we are, we're still innocent until proven guilty. Which, in recent years has generally been eroded and ignored by a lot of authority figures.

Not saying you are, just in general.

 

[RICHARD5]

I think the tussle can be described as LEO or agents trying to do their job Vs the citizen trying to maintain adherence to their rights. (I used the term "versus" for lack of better, succint term but not to imply adversary)
Compound that by the heightened risk of a stop. Neither is familiar with the other and is strongly advised to proceed with caution.

Succintly, how does each conduct themselves to remain intact as to their duty?

Following are actual events I have endured: walking along a public street during daytime I was detained (forcibly spread eagled across the hood of the cruiser with a shotgun pointed in the small of my back) by 3 city police. I happened to look like someone who had just committed strong arm entry to a private residence with owner in the home. You bet I complied but it was the sudden and rapid escalation of force which caused me to poop my Levis. 20-30 minutes later I was cleared to go.

Walking out of a bar to get something from my friend's legally parked car I was order out of the car by city PD who just happened to red light me at the very second I opened the car door. The cop did his darndest to try to arrest me for DUI. The keys weren't even in the ignition. An agitated conversation ensued. (I hadn't had any alcohol, I had been drinking soda.) He then tried to prove I was under the influence in a public place. I vehemently but politely fended his every allegation. He left saying "we'll be watching you". (I was more than 21 yrs old.)

I left a pizza parlour which also serves beer at night and walked to my car. I spied an empty beer bottle in the parking lot and picked it up to throw it in the trash. It was easier to place the bottle in my friend's car then find a trash can. I drove several miles directly to home. As soon as I rounded the corner to my street I was red lighted. Since I lived on the corner I was already pulling to the curb to park. Since I was being pulled over I remained in the car. The officer's first question was how much had I been drinking. I asked did I appear to have been drinking. He said he saw an open container in my vehicle as reason for the stop. I said if that is true he must've seen me pick up the empty at the parking lot. He denied that. I asked am I being detained? He said no. I then got out of the car and proceeded to walk up the driveway to my home. He asked why am I going to that house. I said I live there. He said no I don't. I said how do you know where I live? He said it is too much a coincidence he pulled me over in front of my house. I again asked if I was being detained? He said no so I started to walk the few yards to my door. He said I better not leave, that he can arrest me; Do you want to be arrested? On what charge? was my retort.
So I sat down on a low wall next to where he was standing. I said I will wait to hear what you have to say. Look, I said, you have nothing on me. You say you pulled me over because you saw an open container. I know that is not true. You had to have seen me pick up the bottle. I have had enough of this tomfoolery (I really said that). Either charge me with something or end this right now. By then it had been :45 minutes and I was tired from a long day.
During that time I had voluntarily shown my driver's license (for proof of address) and he had unholstered his baton and shiney handcuffs. I gather that was to intimidate me.

Another time I was temporarily cuffed after being pulled over for doing 31 in a 30 mph zone. Yet another time a marked crusier tailed me for 6 miles on rural roads and only detained me when I parked at the grocery store. Both officers drew there sidearms and pointed them at me in a very defensive position (one behind the open door at my 11 and the other crouched at my 2 o'clock).

I have never dealt drugs or hung with that crowd. I never have had a DUI and have zero criminal record. In spite of these encounters and others like them I hold a high respect for the law and those trying to enforce them. These encounters and others like them have involved county sherrifs, various PDs, TSA, CBP, and DEA. That they have involved different agencies and more often that chance would suggest tells me something. Yet I think I am very cooperative to this day. Sometimes I wonder if I am too cooperative.

 

[RICHARD5]

Can a citizen be too cooperative during a stop? I think yes. I think to not "know your rights" is not only to be ignorant (which is implied) but serves to 'surrender' those rights.

If a citizen has respect for LEO, et al, they may seek to make the job easier for those agents/officers.

BTW: last night I spent several hours viewing case reports of field arrests. I was reminded how difficult a task it is for the officers. I can appreciate the extreme prejudice set against you. I don't seek to undermind you but it seems to "know your rights" (a rather nebulous term) and then to seek to uphold intact those rights can create adversity during a stop.

 

[Zondaracer]

Um..... Any particular reason there is 3 officers who were involved in my stop are calling my phone telling me to "Call them back IMMEDIATELY?"

They probably have been reading this thread

 

[MikeD]

Succintly, how does each conduct themselves to remain intact as to their duty?

Be a normal human being.

Following are actual events I have endured: walking along a public street during daytime I was detained (forcibly spread eagled across the hood of the cruiser with a shotgun pointed in the small of my back) by 3 city police. I happened to look like someone who had just committed strong arm entry to a private residence with owner in the home. You bet I complied but it was the sudden and rapid escalation of force which caused me to poop my Levis. 20-30 minutes later I was cleared to go.

Understandable on their part. Hopefully they told you rather quickly why it was you were taken down, and the process of determining it wasn't you could start, so they can quickly find the right guy. Wrong place, wrong time kind of thing it sounds like.

Walking out of a bar to get something from my friend's legally parked car I was order out of the car by city PD who just happened to red light me at the very second I opened the car door. The cop did his darndest to try to arrest me for DUI. The keys weren't even in the ignition. An agitated conversation ensued. (I hadn't had any alcohol, I had been drinking soda.) He then tried to prove I was under the influence in a public place. I vehemently but politely fended his every allegation. He left saying "we'll be watching you". (I was more than 21 yrs old.)

It should've been apparent quickly whether you were under the influence of alcohol or not. Might have been longer to determine if you were under the influence of anything else. Still though, as soon as it's apparent there's nothing there, then the "official" contact terminates. It would have been reasonable to at least have made contact with you if you had been seen to trip or stumble at all or have trouble walking to your car (don't know if that was the case). But once there's nothing there, then there's nothing there.

I left a pizza parlour which also serves beer at night and walked to my car. I spied an empty beer bottle in the parking lot and picked it up to throw it in the trash. It was easier to place the bottle in my friend's car then find a trash can. I drove several miles directly to home. As soon as I rounded the corner to my street I was red lighted. Since I lived on the corner I was already pulling to the curb to park. Since I was being pulled over I remained in the car. The officer's first question was how much had I been drinking. I asked did I appear to have been drinking. He said he saw an open container in my vehicle as reason for the stop. I said if that is true he must've seen me pick up the empty at the parking lot. He denied that. I asked am I being detained? He said no. I then got out of the car and proceeded to walk up the driveway to my home. He asked why am I going to that house. I said I live there. He said no I don't. I said how do you know where I live? He said it is too much a coincidence he pulled me over in front of my house. I again asked if I was being detained? He said no so I started to walk the few yards to my door. He said I better not leave, that he can arrest me; Do you want to be arrested? On what charge? was my retort.

So I sat down on a low wall next to where he was standing. I said I will wait to hear what you have to say. Look, I said, you have nothing on me. You say you pulled me over because you saw an open container. I know that is not true. You had to have seen me pick up the bottle. I have had enough of this tomfoolery (I really said that). Either charge me with something or end this right now. By then it had been :45 minutes and I was tired from a long day.

During that time I had voluntarily shown my driver's license (for proof of address) and he had unholstered his baton and shiney handcuffs. I gather that was to intimidate me.

Kind of a weird situation there. Again, if he has RS of you being inebriated, then he should have asked to field sobriety you. You can consent to that or not, but if you don't, they have the right to check you in other ways.

Another time I was temporarily cuffed after being pulled over for doing 31 in a 30 mph zone. Yet another time a marked crusier tailed me for 6 miles on rural roads and only detained me when I parked at the grocery store. Both officers drew there sidearms and pointed them at me in a very defensive position (one behind the open door at my 11 and the other crouched at my 2 o'clock).

I have never dealt drugs or hung with that crowd. I never have had a DUI and have zero criminal record. In spite of these encounters and others like them I hold a high respect for the law and those trying to enforce them. These encounters and others like them have involved county sherrifs, various PDs, TSA, CBP, and DEA. That they have involved different agencies and more often that chance would suggest tells me something. Yet I think I am very cooperative to this day. Sometimes I wonder if I am too cooperative.

I just wonder why you have so many run ins with the cops......

 

[ppragman]

The problem is that power corrupts. Being a law enforcement official means you have great power. I've never been treated poorly by police personally, but I've seen and heard about people being strongarmed and abused by the police on a consistent basis. Generally speaking they can do anything they want to you, all of the time - and generally speaking you'll be powerless to stop them. It's not exactly easy to yell "unreasonable search and seizure!" with a weapon pointed at you, additionally, failure to comply any of the time can result in trumped up charges (passive resistance comes to mind), a disrespect for you and your person and the assumption that you are guilty of something - now they just have to find out what. Additionally, for those that travel a lot, realize that the laws are very different from state to state, that your constitutional laws are upheld differently from state to state (try bringing a gun into California, or forming a state workers Union in Wisconsin), that often times LEOs aren't held to the same standards from state to state. Your generally polite state trooper in Minnesota might have a overbearing and thuggish cousin in Dallas.

The police these days are armed for war as well. Take a look at an officer's uniform from the 70s, compare it with today. Police forces have SWAT teams, battle wagons, automatic weapons, and won't hesitate to use all of them. Now they're associated with DHS, and while budgets have grown, population growth has far outpaced staffing in many cities - this leads to a sociological experiment where the police - now "out numbered" by "bad guys" - have to defend themselves from those lawless people from outside - even though violent crime has been dropping in recent years. It hasn't helped that our society has grown a penal system that's based on profit based incarceration.

No, it's not an individual law enforcement officer's fault that they're forced to be suspicious over everything, but we have a system that uses cops for city revenue growth instead of law enforcement, and disregards rights in the name of an appeal to authority - if you're not doing anything wrong then why can't I come into your house / look at your plane / search your car / etc? Sorry, but I cannot find any legitimate reason to have faith in law enforcement officers that I don't personally know, because generally, it's not in my best interest to do so as I can be beaten, detained, and cited for resisting arrest and if there aren't any witnesses to show otherwise, I'm hosed.

 

[ppragman]

Yes, but what you are completely missing is fact vs mindset.

Fact: you are innocent until proven guilty.

Mindset: I have to assume you are a possible bad guy until I can somehow know different when I first approach you, as I don't know you.

This is transparent to you, the public, because the treatment is the same.

If you want to survive as a cop, you need to have this sort of mindset. Cops who don't or who are lax in mindset, are the ones who get shot at traffic stops or get taken by surprise.

I disagree with this. You cannot stop random acts of violence consistently. Violent crime is on the decline, as an officer you're incredibly unlikely to be killed in the line of duty:

This is from the FBI's page (http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/october/leoka_102411/leoka_102411)

• The 56 officers killed is an increase over 2009, when 48 officers were killed. However, significant conclusions may not be drawn from year-to-year comparisons given the nature of the statistics. Ten years ago, for example, 70 officers were killed in the line of duty (excluding the events of 9/11), and five years ago 48 officers were feloniously killed.
  The 2010 report also shows 72 officers were accidently killed in the line of duty, almost all of them involving vehicles. Meanwhile, 53,469 officers were assaulted while on duty—a figure that amounts to one in 10 of the sworn officers in more than 11,000 agencies that reported data.
  All told, the figures illustrate the inherent dangers of law enforcement. Here’s a look at some of the data contained in the report:
  • Offenders used firearms to kill all but one of the 56 victim officers; one officer was killed by a vehicle used as a weapon.
  • Of the 56 officers feloniously killed, 15 were ambushed, 14 were in arrest situations, seven were performing traffic stops, and six were answering disturbance calls.
  • One in three officer assaults occurred while responding to disturbance calls; 14.7 percent occurred while officers were attempting arrests.
  • The average age of officers killed feloniously and accidentally was, respectively, 38 and 39.

If you look on wiki answers (not a great source, but best I could find under short notice) there are roughly 800,000 law enforcement officers in the country (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_police_officers_are_employed_in_the_United_states)
56/800,000 - seems real important to treat everyone as a potential perp.
Now, to be fair, the article also mentions that some 1 in 10 were assaulted in the line of duty. That said, I'd be interested in finding out what constitutes "assault." Because frankly, if you going limp can be considered "passive resistance" then what the hell is assault? Since disturbance calls counted for 1 in 3 assaults, I could see being alarmed going out on a domestic violence call, yet still, I'd like to see some serious data about hospitalizations, etc. before being told that the police are under constant threat.