Just to be clear...
State v Ferrand
Quote:
|
We granted certiorari to consider whether the police, without knocking, requesting permission, or announcing their identity and purpose, may enter a private residence without a warrant and without probable cause and exigent circumstances, to investigate a person's non-threatening possession of a handgun on the porch of his own home...There was nothing to suggest that Ferrand had been or was engaged in the commission of any crime. State v. Moreno, 619 So.2d 62 (La.1993); State v. Belton, 441 So.2d 1195 (La.1983). Moreover, when they rushed across the threshold, the officers had no reason to suspect that anyone inside the apartment, including Ferrand, needed help, that any suspect was about to flee, or that any other course of action would create a grave risk of endangering their own lives. See Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 298-300, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 1646, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967). Finally, the primary illegality of the entry tainted Ferrand's subsequent consent 398*398 to the search of his apartment moments later and required suppression of all of the evidence found in the home.
|
Concealed may be different depending on state laws(as it is typically more regulated and specifically defined), but one cannot categorically say that possession of a firearm/being armed is RAS. I used this example because its from LA. However, in similar cases, courts across the country have ruled in the same fashion.
This is relevant to the checkpoints because the fourth amendment issues remain the same. In that each step of the sequence of events is critical. Just because one step is legal, does not make the subsequent ones also legal. Just because the initial stop is legal, does not automatically make the rest of the officers commands legitimate. So just as legally possessing a firearm does not automatically create RAS, how would not rolling down a window far enough to the officers satisfaction be a crime or cause suspicion of a crime?
For those advocating just complying etc, these questions are unlikely to to be answered by the courts if that is the only course of action that people take. Some people are willing to take these things to court, that doesn't mean you have to, but neither should you disparage them for it. Issues like this are murky, but that is not a reason to remain in the mud and put your faith in all officers actions being legitimate.
Quote:
|
"good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough." . . . If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects," only in the discretion of the police.
|
Beck v Ohio