19 year old driver. Is he standing up for himself or just being a little smartass kid disrespectful of authority? http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1522.asp Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3715017278
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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?
I dunno. YOU tell me! By the way, I misspelled it (Wardlow). Sorry, but I have not read this stuff in years. The "evasive" action is taking off running! So, no I don't think so. Read it here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... ol=98-1036
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: 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." Yeah. Let us examine what you had to say. 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. 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. 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? Well, you got this one generally right. 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:
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.