Let me begin by saying that I have no interest in reading the briefs and I'm just responding to the posts. If there are facts that I'm missing by not reading the briefs, please accept my defense....
Quote:
|
The courts have no business inserting their own opinions on supposed RS, when the Officer in question cannot so assert. It's a bad decision and nothing good will come of this.
|
This strikes me as incorrect. The standard is objective, not subjective... although I have seen some courts use an "objectively" subject frankenstein standard. The fact that the opinion is unanimous should give you pause.
Quote:
|
Here, the Court assumes facts contrary to the the evidence of the suppression hearing, facts relied upon by the Arizona Court of Appeals, in which the Officer herself states she did not have an articulable reason to think Johnson was armed and dangerous. Her testimony was that she patted him down, as a matter of protocol (SOP). Ginsburg cited a few things that might have led a reasonable man to give pause, and even to have RS that Johnson was armed and dangerous, but this completely ignores Trevizos own testimony.
|
Well, the trial court must have made factual findings that supported the state. Who knows what those were. He was wearing gang clothes seems thin, but I'm sure we're just getting a summary.
I'm surprised that you find this decision somehow controversial.