Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,458 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
19 year old driver. Is he standing up for himself or just being a little smartass kid disrespectful of authority?

Officer #1: How are you tonight sir?
Brett: Hi.
Officer #1: Can you put your window down for me.
(I roll the window ALL the way down.)
Officer #1: Do you have a driver's license and proof of insurance?
(I begin to get my information out of my wallet)
Officer #1: Where you headed tonight?
Brett: I don't wish to discuss my personal life with you officer.
Officer #1: Alright, come on up here.
(I start to move my car)
Officer #1: As a matter of fact, just stop your car right here and step out.
Brett: Why am I being detained officer? (directed toward Officer #4)
Officer #4: You better stop runnin your mouth or the other officer will find a reason to lock you up tonight.
(Audio can now be heard again)
3:22
Brett: You're saying you're going to make up a reason to arrest me?
Officer #4: No I didn't. I said we would find a reason.
Brett: Okay. I just want to let you know all of this is being recorded.
Officer #4: That's good, we're recording it too. Do what he tells you to do--
Brett: I don't have a right to talk right here in a normal voice?
Officer #4: Yes you do.
Brett: You're saying I'm going to be arrested.
Officer #4: I'm just saying...
Brett: You just said you‘re going to find a reason to lock me up.
Officer #4: I said do what he telld you to do.
Brett: You said if I keep runnin my mouth, I will be locked up.
Officer #4: I said he'll find a reason.
Why are you going to find a reason to lock me up when I'm only asking why I'm being detained in a normal voice?
Officer #4: Do what he tells you to do.
Brett: Am I being detained?
Officer #4: Yes you are!
Brett: May I leave?
Officer #4: No, you may not.
Brett: Why am I being detained?
Officer #4: Because you don't have a driver's license.
Brett: I do have a driver's license. I gave it to the other officer.
Officer #4: When the other officer comes back--When he comes back--When he comes back you can talk to him about it.
Brett: Why are you saying I don't have my license?
Officer #4: Nineteen years old and you know everything.
Brett: Yes sir.
:D

 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,458 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Brett: Why are you moving my car?
Officer #1: Because I'm going to talk you--I'm going to interview you because you didn't want to interview. You didn't want to sit down and have a talk with me.
Brett: I do not want to talk about my personal life.
Officer #1: Okay.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,103 Posts
Those officers and there supervisors and the whole department should be under investigation. That is sick. And goes against everything America stands for. That Teenager should be rewarded for standing up against unconsitutional actions. I'm glad he is suing. And wish him the best of luck.

They knew exactly what they were doing because they wouldn't give there names. That's unbelieveable. Maybe this case will show other department's that they need to follow the letter of the law themselfs. That is why we have the rights we have. Once we cross the line we (America) are no better than our enemy's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,103 Posts
That is why we have the "The Charters of Freedom." The Decloration of Independence, Consitution, And the Bill of Rights.

Those officers just didn't break a small law. They crossed the line. But, that's why we have the system we have. I have faith that the issue will be resolved in the correct manor. Thanks to a 19 year old young man.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
ls1ssdavid said:
That is why we have the "The Charters of Freedom." The Decloration of Independence, Consitution, And the Bill of Rights.

Those officers just didn't break a small law. They crossed the line. But, that's why we have the system we have. I have faith that the issue will be resolved in the correct manor. Thanks to a 19 year old young man.
I have no faith that is will be resolved correctly.

I see the officers being told "When you act stupid don't get caught on tape next time."

They were fishing. They knew they were fishing. I know they were fishing. We all know... But, that's the real point to DUI stops. 70% trying to find drugs and 30% trying to find drunks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,103 Posts
Rammstein- You maybe right. They may just get a slap on the wrist. But, individual's such as this young man are doing the right thing no doubt. And anyone who is willing to stand up for our Constutional right's get my backing.

I wonder why this hasn't been on the National news. At least I haven't seen it. I'd like to see it on Bill O'reily, and Get some National attention.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
ls1ssdavid said:
Rammstein- You maybe right. They may just get a slap on the wrist. But, individual's such as this young man are doing the right thing no doubt. And anyone who is willing to stand up for our Constutional right's get my backing.

I wonder why this hasn't been on the National news. At least I haven't seen it. I'd like to see it on Bill O'reily, and Get some National attention.
I concur. I applaud anyone willing to stand up for the right thing.

It's not on national news because no one died and/or the kid wasn't black/hispanic/asian/muslim/poor or any combination thereof.

Good thing this wasn't in Atlanta and he didn't have any pot on him. He could have been killed.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,458 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Michigan State Police vs Sitz 1990
Roadblocks are constitutional and not a violation of 4th ammendment as long as every driver, or a defined pattern of drivers (i.e every third driver) are stopped.

Pennsylvania vs Mimms 1977
The fourth ammendment allows LEO's "to order the driver to exit the vehicle without requiring any additional factual justification".

Illinois vs Wardlaw 2000
If an LEO has made a lawful stop and encounters "nervous or evasive" behavior, he may detain that person.

Terry vs Ohio 1968
"reasonable inquiries" as to the person's conduct. "Where are you headed?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
I actually saw a video floating aroung the 'net, from an attorney
with senarios that show you exactly how to act/what to say in different
situations with law enforcement. I can't seem to find it right now,
but maybe it'll comeback to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
Kid Icarus said:
I actually saw a video floating aroung the 'net, from an attorney
with senarios that show you exactly how to act/what to say in different
situations with law enforcement. I can't seem to find it right now,
but maybe it'll comeback to me.
Where you referring to
?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
That was it. Mostly geared towards drugs it appears, but I thought
it brought up some good points.

The one thing in that video that got me was, locking your doors
when asked to get out of your vehicle. The officer would definatley
think you were hiding something then. So then maybe he would
have probable cause if he didn't before.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
Malum Prohibitum said:
Illinois vs Wardlaw 2000
If an LEO has made a lawful stop and encounters "nervous or evasive" behavior, he may detain that person.
MP, per the cited case above, would an officer still have legal standing to detain if someone respectfully declined a warrantless search? After all...what do we have to hide?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,458 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
I was just throwing up food for thought on how a court might come down on this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,215 Posts
Malum Prohibitum said:
I was just throwing up food for thought on how a court might come down on this.
This is how I read it... :puke:

:shock: :lol:
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,458 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
For the benefit of those here, I will post what I posted about these cases over at THR, responding to oobray, who tried to set everybody straight.

Oobray wrote:
am glad to see all of you with the liberty of yourself and others in mind. But I would like to bring reality of the law in to this discussion.
It seems that the blame is being placed on the LEO's for doing thier job. Yes, maybe the DUI checkpoint is wrong on principal... so blame the politicians who wrote the law, and the judges who approved it. Not the LEO's for doing thier job.
Michigan State Police vs Sitz 1990 <-- roadblocks are constitutional and not a violation of 4th ammendment as long as every driver, or a defined pattern of drivers (i.e every third driver) are stopped.
As for those of you who believe the LEO's had no legal right to remove the young lad from his vehicle
Pennsylvania vs Mimms 1977 <--- states that "the fourth ammendment allows LEO's to order the driver to exit the vehicle without requiring any additional factual justification". THat is quoted from the supreme court document.
There has been talk that the officer driving the car was an illegal search and seizure. It was not illegal because the officer did not dislodge anything to look. This falls under the plain view doctrine of Arizona vs Hicks 1978
As far as siezure goes, it would be easy to explain that the officer established reasonable suspiscion to detain the young boy due to the ruling of Illinois vs Wardlow 2000 that states if a LEO has made a lawful stop (in this case that is true) and encounters "nervous or evasive" behavior he may detain that person. The young man was not nervous, however he was evasive.
Those of you who are saying that the young man was exercising his 5th ammendment right not to self incriminate. That applies only if you have been formally arrested. In this case, he was not, he was being detained for investigation. Any statement he made could have easily been thrown out in court because he was not read his rights. So you have no argument there. Also, Terry vs Ohio 1968 states that an LEO may make "reasonable inquiries" as to the person's conduct. "Where are you headed" is definately a "reasonable inquiry".
Now, I do not necessarily agree with some of these case laws, however they are laws. If you feel that these are a violation of the constitution than take that up with the legislators and courts, do NOT blame LEO's who put thier lives on the line everyday.
Now, for all the defense of the officers, I must say that if they truly said anything to the effect of "If you don't stop running your mouth we'll find a reason to arrest you". That is DEFINATELY out of line. However we can't hear that on the video and must take the young man's word for it. Knowing that he intentionaly went looking for a confrontation I would be hard pressed to believe it. There are bad cops out there, but I don't see anything wrong with what these particular cops did as far as legality goes. Sorry but if you are going to stand up for something, at least now you truly know the laws.
Oobray, if you are a lawyer, then you need to turn in your bar card. If you are not a lawyer, then you need to quit pretending.

You claim to have informed everybody so that they "truly know the laws." :rolleyes:

Yeah.

Let us examine what you had to say.

As far as siezure goes, it would be easy to explain that the officer established reasonable suspiscion to detain the young boy due to the ruling of Illinois vs Wardlow 2000 that states if a LEO has made a lawful stop (in this case that is true) and encounters "nervous or evasive" behavior he may detain that person. The young man was not nervous, however he was evasive.
Illinois v. Wardlow involved a guy who took off running in a drug area! What the court really said was that "nervous, evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion," not that nervous or evasive behavior on its own justifies anything. It is one factor among many, but what you must forget is that it is one factor in determining what? Reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion of what? Reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed or is about to be committed. Reasonable suspicion means that one is "justified in suspecting that Wardlow was involved in criminal activity, and, therefore, in investigating further." Yeah, that's a quote from Wardlow.

Pennsylvania vs Mimms 1977 <--- states that "the fourth ammendment allows LEO's to order the driver to exit the vehicle without requiring any additional factual justification". THat is quoted from the supreme court document.
This is in the context of a traffic stop, where one is not only suspected of a crime, but the officer witnessed a crime. You are already detained. the court's reasoning was that there is no real difference between detaining you in the seat of your car and detaining you outside the car.

"The police have already decided that the driver shall be breifly detained; the only question is whether he shall spend that period sitting in the driver's seat of his caror standing alongside it." Oh, yeah, that's a quote from Mimms, too.

The Mimms case is not in the context of a DUI checkpoint, which courts uphold only if the level of seizure is de minimus - a check of the license and on your way. At DUI checkpoints, they can only detain you further if there is reasonable suspicion of a crime (DUI) from this very brief and minimal intrusion. And no, refusing to be interrogated or discuss one's personal life with the officer does not create "reasonable suspicion" of DUI.

Also, Terry vs Ohio 1968 states that an LEO may make "reasonable inquiries" as to the person's conduct. "Where are you headed" is definately a "reasonable inquiry".
As for Terry, it requires more than a "hunch" that there is criminal activity. Without reasonable suspicion - no "reasonable inquiries." At this particular DUI checkpoint, there is no suspicion of any wrongdoing, and therefore reasonable inquiries are not necessary to dispel the officer's suspicions. What suspicions? Suspicions of what? Did you actually read any of these cases?

Michigan State Police vs Sitz 1990 <-- roadblocks are constitutional and not a violation of 4th ammendment as long as every driver, or a defined pattern of drivers (i.e every third driver) are stopped.
Well, you got this one generally right.:neener:

BUT you left out the context when you went on your wild ramapge with the other cases.

"It is important to recognize what our inquiry is about. No allegations are before us of unreasonable treatment of any person after an actual detention at a particular checkpoint. . . . We address only the initial stop of each motorist passing through a checkpoint and the associated preliminary questioning and observation by checkpoint officers. Detention of particular motorists for more extensive field sobriety testing may require satisfaction of an individualized suspicion standard."

That quote is the context. And what level of intrusion did they approve? Ordering people from their cars for being smart mouths or not answering questions about their personal travel plans? Um, no.

Remember, the suspicion has to be reasonable, and it has to be suspicion of a crime, not suspicion that the officer does not like the driver's attitude.
:scrutiny:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,103 Posts
Also in all these cases brought to light it seems that for whatever reason or another that the LEO seem it justified to detain you only results in just that. You being detained. Not in anything else. So it still in my opinion doesn't justify officers to search your vehicle without "Probable Cause". Of course unless you have something illegal in plain view.

Detain- To keep in custody or temporary confinement.

Which is not the same as arrest. You are not charged of a crime yet. The LEO's are trying to figure out if a crime has been commited. But that doesn't mean they can use unlawful means to find something to charge you with (i.e an illegal search and seizure). In my opinion in the case that was brought up on this forum originally. The LEO's are not legaly justifed to do what they did.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top