|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 7, 2013, 07:00 PM | #51 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
This
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
July 7, 2013, 10:02 PM | #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
Quote:
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - |
|
July 7, 2013, 11:11 PM | #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2013
Posts: 456
|
If a person is armed then the officer has the right to do a Terry stop. The officer is making sure that person is legally carrying a firearm. There are people, even in friendly states, who are not legally carrying a firearm such as convicted criminals. There is also officer safety and the officer may want to make sure the firearm is not loaded around them.
If you are carrying anything which might harm the officer or others then a Terry stop can be performed. Pawpaw is an experienced law enforcement professional and he knows what he can and cant do in his particular locality. |
July 8, 2013, 12:09 AM | #54 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Posts: 1,512
|
Quote:
|
|
July 8, 2013, 01:10 AM | #55 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
Just to be clear...
State v Ferrand Quote:
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:
|
||
July 8, 2013, 06:53 AM | #56 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
johnelmore worte;
Quote:
teeroux wrote; Quote:
So, using that same logic, merely driving an automobile is also RAS for a Terry Stop at any given time ? IE: "He was driving an automobile, since it requires a "permit" I have a right as a LEO, to stop any vehicle, at random, minus any other infraction, simply to check his license" Is this really the way you perceive the "Terry Stop" works ?
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - Last edited by OuTcAsT; July 8, 2013 at 07:10 AM. |
||
July 8, 2013, 08:47 AM | #57 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2013
Posts: 456
|
I do agree with you but it doesnt matter what we think or believe. What matters is how a judge or jury thinks and believes. So a judge or jury in Pawpaws area of operation is ok with searching any armed person.
|
July 8, 2013, 10:00 AM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,560
|
In my opinion the driver was correct, and the police were wrong. After all it was a DUI check point. Never did the Officer's suggest the driver may have been intoxicated. A clear case of the police using a DUI checkpoint to allow for a fishing expidition. Wrong as two left feet. Never did the Officer request a drivers license, registration, or proof of insurance. Any or all would have been reasonable, and the driver would have had to produce these documents. Never did the officer ask if the driver had used alcohol, or other intoxicants. Refusal to answer this question would have given the Officers (in most states) the option of field intox test. Refusal of that may have resulted in an arrest. In the vidio it seems the police were focused from the beginning on searching the car...
My department used very similar enforcement tools. We call them "SAFETY CHECK POINTS" We'd pull every fifth car into a staging area and do a safety check of the vehical. Most of the violations were "Uninsured vehical" Next was "Unlicensed Operator" , then unregistered, uninspected, and forged inspection sticker. We'd get a few intox also. We did clear a lot of outstanding warrants. Using the number of every 5th car we were able to maintain some degree of random. All vehical documentation, and all license documentation was demanded, but any other information was by request. If a passenger refused to give his or her name... That was the end of it. |
July 8, 2013, 11:28 AM | #59 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
johnelmore wrote;
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - |
||
July 8, 2013, 11:45 AM | #60 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
Quote:
|
|
July 8, 2013, 12:34 PM | #61 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 19, 2007
Location: Lago Vista TX
Posts: 2,425
|
I've been stopped three times in the past few years (no tickets issued) and the interaction with law enforcement was nothing but pleasant, smooth and quick. That said, this seems to be a case of an officer a bit too full of himself who decides to make this guy's life miserable because he wouldn't roll down the window.
A Chicago Tribune story a few years ago said drug sniffing dogs are right about 44 percent of the time, and only 27 percent of the time when a Hispanic driver was involved. I wouldn't want to spend the night in jail based on that level of accuracy. The story said that in many instances where the dog was wrong, he was reacting to a cue from his handler, not a drug scent. Investigators at the University of California at Davis assessed the accuracy of 18 drug and/or explosive detection dog/handler teams in a four-room church. No drugs or target scents were present in any of the rooms, but handlers were falsely told that contraband was present in two of the rooms, each marked by a piece of red construction paper. Authors reported 225 incorrect responses overall, but found that dogs were more likely to provide false alerts in rooms where their handlers believed that illicit substances were present. I haven't read every post on this topic; did they ever do a breath or blood test on this guy? It WAS a DUI checkpoint, after all.
__________________
"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." Albert Camus |
July 8, 2013, 12:58 PM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2013
Location: Middle TN
Posts: 165
|
bikerbill,
The sheriff's deputy is a member of a drug task force that works I-24 in Rutherford County, just outside of Nashville going toward Chattanooga. This force has worked that section of I-24 for 20 or so years. A friend of mine's son is on the force. Rumor is that a lot drug trafficking passes through that section of the interstate. Normally, they don't operate checkpoints. They look for speeders, bad tail lights, etc... in order to make stops. They've made some big drug busts over the years and have a reputation and it's not for adhering to the 4th amendment. They definitely "profile." A Hispanic would be crazy to try the stuff this kid did. I think the deputy just got ticked off at the kid for not rolling his window down all the way. Not sure, but my guess is that state troopers were also working the DUI checkpoint and this guy messed with the wrong person. |
July 8, 2013, 01:04 PM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 19, 2007
Location: Lago Vista TX
Posts: 2,425
|
Interesting .. thanks for the clarification ...
__________________
"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." Albert Camus |
July 8, 2013, 01:14 PM | #64 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
Quote:
|
|
July 8, 2013, 06:22 PM | #65 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 24, 2010
Location: Central Louisiana
Posts: 3,137
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
July 10, 2013, 11:07 AM | #66 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
Quote:
Quote:
I had a feeling that was the case, thanks for clearing that up !
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - |
|||
July 10, 2013, 04:15 PM | #67 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 12,463
|
Quote:
Clearly this kid wanted to push their buttons that night, but a lot of these officers think that above the society they serve by using terms like "civilians." I'm not saying that all officers have that mentality but clearly some do.
__________________
"He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson |
|
July 10, 2013, 05:28 PM | #68 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2013
Location: Middle TN
Posts: 165
|
Why is it that the deputy would not respond to the driver's question about being free to go or am I being detained?
I've notice a few you tube videos dealing with the questioning of someone who has not committed an apparent crime and the police seem to never want to answer these questions. Why is this? Seems some sort of game is being played and I wonder what it is. |
July 10, 2013, 05:50 PM | #69 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
|
|
July 10, 2013, 09:19 PM | #70 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 6, 2012
Location: Lakewood, CO
Posts: 1,057
|
I have been detained for refusing to answer questions, like "Where are you going?" and "Where are you coming from?"
I absolutely will not answer any questions of this nature and simply state that I will not discuss my whereabouts or answer any further questions. This has never really gone over very well in the few instances it's come up, but that's the way it is. I did have one officer get quite irritated with me for politely refusing to answer his questions, he became obviously irritated and began raising his voice at me, when he asked me again "WHERE ARE YOU GOING?" I answered with "Anywhere I GD well please!" Fortunately there were other officers there who were much more professional and apparently of higher rank than this guy. Most of this comes from legal advice that I have paid actual $$ for, basically I was told to never, ever, answer police questions, no matter how meaningless or insignificant you think your answer is, ANYTHING you say at any time can and will be used against you.
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member Since 1999 "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." George Mason Last edited by iraiam; July 10, 2013 at 09:27 PM. |
July 10, 2013, 10:07 PM | #71 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,294
|
Quote:
How much of the checkpoint process is one required to comply? I'm assuming here they can only detain you if they have probably cause to suspect driving under the influence and would be required to tell you that if they answer yes. So the minimum requirement is to satisfy that query by engaging the officer verbally and visually from within your car, anything beyond that without being detained would be unreasonable and a violation of your rights!
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2 |
|
July 10, 2013, 10:21 PM | #72 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Posts: 1,512
|
State vs Ferrand was not a case involving illegal carrying of a concealed handgun or other dangerous weapons. Terry Stop does not usually apply to people in their own residence or curtlage.
Quote:
I was speaking of carrying concealed handguns or dangerous weapons. It is a crime to carry a concealed handgun not withstanding a permit. If you see what you have a reasonable belief to be a hangun butt in a persons waistband you have a reasonble suspision that a crime is occuring. This is different from your example of driving in that the act of driving itself is not a crime. Carrying a concealed weapon is. Last edited by teeroux; July 10, 2013 at 10:40 PM. |
|
July 10, 2013, 10:43 PM | #73 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
Quote:
Quote:
To the second part that is the $64,000 question, because they failed to define it in the michigan decision. This would come down in large part to your local laws, but even then it would could be fuzzy. This would also relate to the first question, how long is the seizure lawful? They're pretty clear about only covering the initial stop and questioning, along with it being "brief". But again, this wasn't even close to defined. |
||
July 11, 2013, 03:13 AM | #74 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
So what if, after being ordered to exit the vehicle, the kid had locked the doors and left his keys in the ignition? Would they have broken his window to effect the search based on Fido's nose; which in this case proved to be quite fallible?
In such a case, would they be required to attain a warrant? What if the person had done as above but has an external keypad on the door. Can the police order them to enter the code to open the doors? Can one refuse? Knowing the code, but stating you don't, would be taken as providing false information to a police officer -- an arrestable offense.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey |
July 11, 2013, 06:40 AM | #75 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
teeroux said;
Quote:
Quote:
Again; Quote:
I do not see a distinction between the two and, in fact, there is none.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - Last edited by OuTcAsT; July 11, 2013 at 07:57 AM. |
|||
|
|