View Single Post
Old August 30, 2012, 06:14 PM   #99
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
And you want proof that it doesn't....California.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
No, the defendant didn't provide reasonable suspicion. Embody, the guy with the gun, wasn't the defendant
Indeed, you are correct on that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
Perhaps you didn't fully read the opinion or you don't understand the case.
I am wondering if you really think that getting the party's designation wrong means that I didn't understand the case. I understood enough of the case to locate the court's writing about reasonable suspicion, the articulated basis for the stop.

Quote:
Embody’s AK-47, carried openly and fully loaded through a state park, gave Ward ample reason for suspicion that Embody possessed an illegal firearm. The barrel was a half-inch shy of the legal limit, and, when coupled with the thirty-round ammunition clip, it reasonably could look more like a rifle than a handgun. All of this explains the reactions of visitors to the park, who became frightened at the sight of a man in camouflage carrying an AK-47 across his chest, including one couple who reported
a man with an “assault rifle.” R.22-3 at 6. Making matters worse (or at least more suspicious), Embody had painted the barrel tip of the gun orange, typically an indication that the gun is a toy. An officer could fairly suspect that Embody had used the paint to disguise an illegal weapon. On this record, an officer could reasonably suspect something was amiss.

The scope of Ward’s investigation also was reasonably related to the
circumstances that justified the stop.
Emphasis added.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
In any case, your characterization is a little overly simplistic. It would be more accurate to say that Embody's conduct, engaged in to provoke a confrontation, was of a nature and sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion.
Then how is my characterisation overly simplistic?

Quote:
Originally Posted by me
Seeking a confrontation wasn't the basis for the RS. The defendant in that case [sic - should be plaintiff-appellant] displayed specific behavior (like displaying a weapon one could reasonably conclude was not legally possessed or painting the item in a way that suggested an attempted deception) that gave rise to articulable RS.
...Which is what you note is more accurate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
It would be more accurate to say that Embody's conduct, engaged in to provoke a confrontation, was of a nature and sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion.
Emphasis added.

That some police behavior was predictable after Embody's behavior gave rise to RS doesn't mean that "seeking a confrontation" is some sort of substitute for articulable RS (itself a pretty low standard).

Therefore, the court in Embody does not adopt a rule that one seeking a confrontation cannot complain.


Why does that matter in this thread? Because the issue this thread presents involves OCers who have a presumed intent to be confronted by POs. That is distinguishable from conduct giving rise to reasonable suspicion; most people stopped by POs do not intend to provide that, and the intent to do so isn't pertinent to the legitimacy of a stop.

Last edited by zukiphile; August 30, 2012 at 06:32 PM.
zukiphile is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04992 seconds with 7 queries