Definition of "detained" in Question 16 of N400 form.

[rick92]

Not quite, my friend. It is vague and open to interpretation. The fact remains that unless it is explicitly stated, it could be still illegal. Therefore, an administrative law scholar did not write these questions. These sentences on the M-476 guide were written with the intent to be vague, otherwise they would be very, very clear.


Note that unless a traffic incident
was alcohol or drug related, you do not need
to submit documentation for traffic fines and
incidents that did not involve an actual arrest
if the only penalty was a fine of less than
$500 and/or points on your driver’s license.

not quite true. this is what it says
You are still required to report any citation but are not required to submit documentation (like fine payment receipts, traffic school attendence, court papers) if the citation was not related to drugs or alcohol and fine was less than $500.

 

[rick92]

What about this:

Note: If the traffic incident was alcohol or drug related, then you do need to submit documentation for traffic fines and incidents unless the fine was less than $500 and /or you obtained points in your driver license. If an arrest was made because of the fine or incident then you need to submit all documents related to it.-

 

[barnold]

Is there any way I can check my incident reports (for Example in Texas)?

I have two seeding ticket (around $150 each) I have reported them in my N-400 forms but I didn't report a warning I got because of not stopping for a Stop sign.
The cop stopped me and asked why I did not stop? and I said I didn't see it and He gave a warning and we said bye!

Does warning save some where?

barnold

 

[dms1]

You are still required to report any citation but are not required to submit documentation (like fine payment receipts, traffic school attendence, court papers) if the citation was not related to drugs or alcohol and fine was less than $500.

It's also worth noting the word "submit" in there - meaning "send in with your application". There have been cases reported where someone went to court to resolve a minor traffic violation and was subsequently asked to produce the court paperwork at interview. It seems that if you just pay the fine or dismiss it through defensive driving etc. then you won't require any paperwork, but once a court is involved the IO could want proof that the matter is resolved.

 

[WhoRunTings]

follow-up after interview

Hi all...

Just got out of my interview, which I describe in ranting detail here:
http://forums.immigration.com/showthread.php?t=301821

At the interview, I specifically asked the IO whether getting pulled over for a traffic violation counted as detention. The IO said YES it counted, even if you were released with a verbal warning and no offense found/no charges filed.

Due to advise in this thread, I originally chose not to report cases where I was pulled over but released with only a verbal warning. (Also, I was afraid the sheer number of traffic stops -- yes, it seems I have some bad luck with that -- would bloat the application.)

However, I got a bit nervous afterward. So, I brought to the interview a neatly printed sheet listing my verbal warnings in the same style as the "table of offenses/etc." in Part 10. I tried to get the IO to add it to the application for completeness, but the IO refused, stating that traffic violations did not count against good moral character.

Now granted, this is just one IO's opinion -- your mileage may vary. However, as a result of this interview, I would advise people to report verbal warnings. If you can't remember the exact date/place (I certainly couldn't), put down a date range. I did this for a traffic ticket from too long ago to have a record.

I mean, what's the harm? They don't count against good moral character, so best not to omit anything that the USCIS could find out about later. And why risk having to explain to the IO why you omitted something on your application?

And also, certainly police officers are accountable for the time they spent pulling you over? So perhaps they have a record of the traffic stop somewhere, and you best disclose it. I certainly see them filling out paperwork in their cars a lot after releasing people from being "detained"...

 

[suncat]

Hi all...

Just got out of my interview, which I describe in ranting detail here:
http://forums.immigration.com/showthread.php?t=301821

At the interview, I specifically asked the IO whether getting pulled over for a traffic violation counted as detention. The IO said YES it counted, even if you were released with a verbal warning and no offense found/no charges filed.

Due to advise in this thread, I originally chose not to report cases where I was pulled over but released with only a verbal warning. (Also, I was afraid the sheer number of traffic stops -- yes, it seems I have some bad luck with that -- would bloat the application.)

However, I got a bit nervous afterward. So, I brought to the interview a neatly printed sheet listing my verbal warnings in the same style as the "table of offenses/etc." in Part 10. I tried to get the IO to add it to the application for completeness, but the IO refused, stating that traffic violations did not count against good moral character.

Now granted, this is just one IO's opinion -- your mileage may vary. However, as a result of this interview, I would advise people to report verbal warnings. If you can't remember the exact date/place (I certainly couldn't), put down a date range. I did this for a traffic ticket from too long ago to have a record.

I mean, what's the harm? They don't count against good moral character, so best not to omit anything that the USCIS could find out about later. And why risk having to explain to the IO why you omitted something on your application?

And also, certainly police officers are accountable for the time they spent pulling you over? So perhaps they have a record of the traffic stop somewhere, and you best disclose it. I certainly see them filling out paperwork in their cars a lot after releasing people from being "detained"...

Then according to you, most people will answer YES to detention question???

I still doubt it.

Thanks for sharing your experience. Good luck to you!

 

[Bobsmyth]

.. as a result of this interview, I would advise people to report verbal warnings. ...
I mean, what's the harm?

The potential harm is disclosing information that is not required (ex:verbal traffic warnings) is that it might trigger an IO to unnecessarily flag your case for further review by a superior.

 

[WBH]

The potential harm is disclosing information that is not required (ex:verbal traffic warnings) is that it might trigger an IO to unnecessarily flag your case for further review by a superior.

Or they can request for documents you can not get. Imagine that if you told USCIS you was once stopped by a cop and the cop let you go after 5 minutes of questioning without citation, and USCIS ask you to get a police report, where the hell can you get such report?

 

[WBH]

Hi all...


At the interview, I specifically asked the IO whether getting pulled over for a traffic violation counted as detention. The IO said YES it counted, even if you were released with a verbal warning and no offense found/no charges filed.
"...

If you ask the IO, he must answer Yes. I guess if you ask the IO I don't carry my GC everyday
should I answer Yes to "have you ever commited an offnese for which you were not arrested"
he would probably say Yes too. It is better if the case "don't ask,
don't answer". If everyone answer Yes this way, the USCIS will be
flooded with trivious Yes answer and the USCIS may not be able to pay attention to the true crime

Since these IOs work for government and their job are important job concerning national security,
you can believe these folks went thru more strict crminal background check and scrutiny when they
apply for these jobs, but I doubt they were not that technically truthful when they answer questions
regarding their background


It is the citizenship application not the sainthood application. Follow what an average person would do.
Don't be too hard on yourself. In fact, I think too truthful in trivivial details is a kind of hypocritical.
They disclose some trivial details simply just want to show off how honest they are. If you really
disclose something that put your application in danger and USCIS would never find out on its won, then
other will belive how honest you are.

 

[formerf1]

http://www.image-in-asian.com/ramesh_m/ramesh41.html

 

[Vorpal]

They disclose some trivial details simply just want to show off how honest they are.

Ditto. A good example that comes to mind is the applicant who answered "Yes" to the "Have you ever claimed to be a U.S. Citizen?" question, because she mentioned it in a casual conversation with her friends.

 

[WBH]

Ditto. A good example that comes to mind is the applicant who answered "Yes" to the "Have you ever claimed to be a U.S. Citizen?" question, because she mentioned it in a casual conversation with her friends.

I wonder if some civic tests USCIS provided answers trick applicants into such claim. One example: "What did the dec of ind. do?" Answer: "Declared OUR independence from Greeat Britain". The IO can say you implicitly falsely claim you are a US citizen because only citizens have the rights to refer to
USA as "OURS". Applicants should answer "Declaratrion of independece declared THEIR independence from Great Britain"

 

[absrao]

I wonder if some civic tests USCIS provided answers trick applicants into such claim. One example: "What did the dec of ind. do?" Answer: "Declared OUR independence from Greeat Britain". The IO can say you implicitly falsely claim you are a US citizen because only citizens have the rights to refer to
USA as "OURS". Applicants should answer "Declaratrion of independece declared THEIR independence from Great Britain"

While remotely possible, I doubt any IO dare to venture into that kinda stuff. They want to keep their jobs and want to go home at the end of the day just like most of us. Moreover, the exact question asked on the form is if you ever claimed to be U.S.Citizen, nothing more and nothing less. If you ever said, I am Citizen, it doesnt count as U.S.Citizen. If you ever claimed, you are American, it does not count as claiming to be U.S.Citizen. Referring to 'our country', 'our government' etc does not mean you claim tobe U.S.Citizen either. If anyone misinterprets it and try to take you to court, they wont last a minute in front of judge.

As for the civics test, I did have issue with the question where the answer is 'taxation without representation'. While going through that question/answer, I was relating it to how all H1B and greencard folks are taxed equally to citizens without representation or power to choose their reps in govt.

 

[Vorpal]

Referring to 'our country', 'our government' etc does not mean you claim tobe U.S.Citizen either. If anyone misinterprets it and try to take you to court, they wont last a minute in front of judge.

Once you become an LPR, U.S. becomes "your country" and its government becomes "your government".

 

[Triple Citizen]

Nothing justifies anyone to act like a show off. However, personally I still prefer type of people you have described below, compared to perpetual concealers

They disclose some trivial details simply just want to show off how honest they are.

 

[baikal3]

I asked a lawyer friend of mine, who practices civil and criminal law, about the definition of being detained. He said that, in his opinion, routine traffic stops, airport security and customs checks and searches, etc, do not count as being detained in the legal sense.
As I understood, being detained means being formally being taken into custody and the key requirement is that you should be explicitly told that you are being detained or arrested. In most instances being detained is the same as being arrested but not always. E.g. one can be detained as a material witness or detained in protective custody or detained for medical reasons, etc. Apparenly, also, most people in ICE custody awaiting deportation are detained rather than arrested, because they are being held for violation of civil rather than criminal laws.
Also, as I understood, the guys sitting in Gitmo are detained rather than arrested and they are held in military detention as enemy combatants rather than criminal or civil offenders.

This lawyer said that even if a traffic stop results in a ticket, you are not being detained or arrested unless and untill you are explicitly told so by the police officer.

So, IMHO, it makes no sense to answer "yes" to question D16 "Have you ever been arrested, cited or detained by a law enforcement officer" on N-400 if the only thing that happened was a verbal warning by a police officer. On the other hand, if a police officer issued a ticket (even if it is just a warning ticket, with no fine), question D16 would have to be answered "yes" because a ticket issued to a specific person constitutes being cited.

As noted above, answering "yes" when it is not required would only slow down the processing of your application and result in additional review or even an RFE. In fact, whenever one of these questions is maked "yes", the IO will usually want some documentary evidence (such as a copy of the court record) showing how a particular arrest/detention was disposed of. In a case where no actual detention has occurred it will not be possible to produce such a record and a fairly likely result would be a delay in the processing of the case.

I do not believe there is any possibility that somebody's N-400 application would be denied or that somebody's citizenship would later on be revoked simply because the person did not report a verbal warning by a police officer on their N-400.

 

[formerf1]

I wonder if some civic tests USCIS provided answers trick applicants into such claim. One example: "What did the dec of ind. do?" Answer: "Declared OUR independence from Greeat Britain". The IO can say you implicitly falsely claim you are a US citizen because only citizens have the rights to refer to
USA as "OURS". Applicants should answer "Declaratrion of independece declared THEIR independence from Great Britain"

WOW...This is by far the best illustration of a point of view in the forum!

Here again is the reason why common sense is a must when dealing with USCIS.

Thanks.

 

[formerf1]

Once you become an LPR, U.S. becomes "your country" and its government becomes "your government".

WBH was making a point in a sarcastic way....

 

[columbusohio1]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_definition_of_being_detained_by_a_police_officer




What is the definition of being detained by a police officer?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a police officer wishes to question you, his actions fall under one of three areas: Contact, Detention, or Arrest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Contact with you must be consensual. A police officer has not yet formulated enough suspicion of any wrong-doing to elevate this beyond a mere, "May I ask you a few questions?" You may be questioned, but you have the right to refuse to answer, and the right to walk away from a Contact.
An example of a Contact: A police officer walking his beat sees you and does not recognize you from the area. He may be curious as to why you are present, especially if it is a time of day when no one is usually about. However, you have done nothing to arouse his suspicion, so to satisfy his curiosity, he may Contact you and ask you some questions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Detention is a non-consensual temporary denial of liberty. A police officer must have "reasonable suspicion" that

you are about to commit a crime
you are in the act of committing a crime, or
you have committed a crime

in order to Detain you. The officer has the authority to temporarily deny you the ability to leave while he investigates his suspicion. You may still refuse to answer any questions, but you have no right to leave. The officer must use a reasonable amount of time to investigate his suspicions until the detention elevates to the level of "probable cause" to arrest you. If the officer fails to determine there is probable cause for an Arrest, he must release you in a reasonable amount of time. The courts have determined that what is a reasonable amount of time is relative to the criminal activity being investigated. If you attempt to leave a detention without the permission of the police officer, you may be subject to Arrest. During a Detention, absent certain circumstances, a police officer may not move you to another location or the Detention becomes a de facto Arrest.

An example of a Detention: A police officer walking his beat sees you and does not recognize you from the area. He observes you for several minutes as you walk back and forth in front of a liquor store that is just about to close. You are wearing a red ballcap and the officer has taken two liquor store robbery reports this month about a person wearing a red ballcap entering the store just before closing time. You appear agitated and nervous, looking up and down the street. A police cruiser drives by and you duck into an alcove, then reemerge when the cruiser leaves. The officer determines that your actions are consistent enough with those of a robbery suspect that he believes he has reasonable suspicion to Detain you and investigate whether you are about to rob this liquor store.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Arrest occurs when the officer has determined that a crime has occurred and that there is "probable cause" to believe you committed the crime. An Arrest is non-consensual seizure of your person. Probable cause has sometimes been defined as "more likely than not," so the threshold is fairly low - the officer does not have to have sufficient evidence to prove your guilt, only that you are likely to be responsible based on objective evidence, such as someone identifying you, or physical evidence, or an admission. During an Arrest, you are still not required to answer any questions and you are not free to leave. You will be taken to jail and/or magistrate after you are Arrested.

An example of an Arrest: A police officer walking his beat hears an alarm start ringing from a local liquor store. He sees you run out of the store wearing a red ballcap and carrying a pistol in one hand and a handful of money in the other. The officer knows the clerk in the store on sight, and doesn't recognize you. The officer has taken two liquor store robbery reports this month about an armed person wearing a red ballcap entering the store just before closing time. Right after you run out, the clerk runs out, points at you and yells, "Help! I've been robbed!" The officer Arrests you because he has "probable cause" (based on his observation of your dress, your actions, and the clerk's words, it is more likely than not you just committed a robbery) to believe you have just committed an armed robbery.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Vorpal]

WBH was making a point in a sarcastic way....

I agree with you 100%. If you reread my response, you'll see that I was actually supporting his point.