View Single Post
Old February 20, 2013, 01:43 PM   #86
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
The "I don't want to/don't have to talk to cops" attitude is not borne out of common sense. It's borne out of wanting to confront authority.
Correct it's not borne of common sense. It's borne from the constitution and various legal precedents that explicitly address where police authority ends and a persons rights begin.

Stop and Frisk AKA Hey you're not doing anything illegal but we're going to conduct a terry stop anyway.

Terry v Ohio Defines detainment as a seizure, among other 4th amendment issues.
[W]henever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has ‘seized' that person," and the Fourth Amendment requires that the seizure be "reasonable."
Brown v Texas Directly addresses that subjectively looking funny/suspicious whatever is not RAS.

To this end, the Fourth Amendment requires that a seizure must be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society's legitimate interests require the seizure of the particular individual
The flaw in the State's case is that none of the circumstances [p52] preceding the officers' detention of appellant justified a reasonable suspicion that he was involved in criminal conduct. Officer Venegas testified at appellant's trial that the situation in the alley "looked suspicious," but he was unable to point to any facts supporting that conclusion.
In the absence of any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest and appellant's right to personal security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference
Emphasis mine.

Sadly both Brown v Texas and Terry v Ohio were decades ago, yet some LE continue to think that 4th amendment violations are ok.
sigcurious is offline  
Page generated in 0.08472 seconds with 7 queries