Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
14,010 Posts
Methinks I would like to read the full opinion. Citation perchance?

Nemo
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,094 Posts
Running is suspicious. Stopping is suspicious. Talking too much is suspicious. Remaining silent (a constitutional right!) is suspicious (and can be held against you when you do it BEFORE you're subject to custodial interrogation). Being tall is suspicious and being short is suspicious. About the only thing that cops and their prosecutor allies DON'T claim is "suspicious" is race-- so no racial profiling. But they want to profile everything else.

P.S. All neighborhoods are "high crime neighborhoods" too, and thus people in those areas can't reasonably expect much privacy. Show me a neighborhood that hasn't had a burglary or auto theft within a few miles of it in the last year!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fallschirmjäger

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,094 Posts
So, there's only one series of acceptable behaviors to these cops, and any deviation of what the cop expects means that you're suspicious and can be detained and questioned against your will (and probably patted down or searched for the sake of "officer safety" too).

THAT 'LOGIC' REMINDS ME OF THIS CHARACTER IN "FULL METAL JACKET" (1987)

 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,094 Posts
Methinks I would like to read the full opinion. Citation perchance?

Nemo
Here ya go.
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2021/b305359.html

P.S. I don't think I can properly evalute this case without reviewing the trial court / motion to suppress hearing testimony. If Flores really ducked behind a parked car as soon as the cops drove toward the end of that street, a cul-de-sac street with plenty of gang grafitti and frequent drug deals going down, that action of ducking may be suspicious indeed.
But, if upon the cops' approach on foot the "suspect" (citizen) stayed in the bent-over or kneeling position PRETENDING TO TIE HIS SHOE, that is a reasonable explanation for his behavior and would seem to take the suspicion out of it. And IF the guy is tying his shoe, you would not expect him to stand back up until the task is done. If, on the other hand, he were only ducking down to avoid the cops noticing him, once the cops parked their car and walked right up to him, OBVIOUSLY the jig is up, and the guy might as well stand up and face them... unless his shoelace-tying task is not yet completed!
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,484 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
But, if upon the cops' approach on foot the "suspect" (citizen) stayed in the bent-over or kneeling position PRETENDING TO TIE HIS SHOE, that is a reasonable explanation for his behavior and would seem to take the suspicion out of it. And IF the guy is tying his shoe, you would not expect him to stand back up until the task is done. If, on the other hand, he were only ducking down to avoid the cops noticing him, once the cops parked their car and walked right up to him, OBVIOUSLY the jig is up, and the guy might as well stand up and face them... unless his shoelace-tying task is not yet completed!
How, pray tell, is remaining bent over (straight legged and bent at the waist, as the dissent described the video footage) even while the police are approaching you from both sides, plainly visible, with flashlights on you, radio noise, and telling you to stand up, reasonable suspicion that you are in possession of contraband drugs?

While the majority states that he did appear to "duck down" behind his car, they are not relying on that.

This brings me to the second issue with which I disagree with the majority--the issue of reasonable suspicion. Let's assume the detention occurred at the point when appellant did not immediately stand erect of his own accord. The testifying officer could not articulate what criminal activity he suspected appellant was engaged in. He just thought it was suspicious when appellant moved from one side of the car to another and then bent over.The court found it "odd" and therefore suspicious that appellant did not move or speak when the spotlight came on and did not rise until the officers commanded him to do so. To the trial court, reasonable suspicion was created because appellant bent over and, unlike "any normal human being," waited "too long" (an amorphous concept not quantified by the witness or the court) to stand erect and remained silent.

I accept the trial court's finding that appellant was trying to avoid police contact by ducking.But, as weknow, appellant had an absolute right to avoid police contact. In Florida v. Royer (1983) 460 U.S. 491, the Supreme Court reiterated that a person can avoid police contact without arousing reasonable suspicion by walking away, refusing to listen to, or declining to participate in police questioning.A person may go about one's business.(Id. at pp.497-498.). Under the trial court's ruling and the majority opinion, however, how does one avoid police contact without creating reasonable suspicion justifying detention?​
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,484 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Even outside of communities distrustful of police authority, how safe is it anytime or anywhere to move suddenly when police approach? Movement is incredibly dangerous for anyonebecause if police deem it sudden, and hence threatening, someone may end up shot. On top of that, we know for some populations, to stand up from a bent position as the police approachwould effectively be suicidal . . .​
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,484 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
The majority says you can't duck and freeze and then wait too long to stand up. What's left? The only option for a "normal" human being, according to the majority, is to immediately stand erect and politely inquire about the purpose of the stop, a conversation we all have an absolute right not to start. In effect, the majority compels those in a high crime area to "stand still"in a way the police subjectively believe is not furtive so as not to create reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Without objective criteria pointing to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, "the risk of arbitrary and abusive police practices exceeds tolerable limits." (Brown v. Texas, supra, 443U.S. at p. 52.) The majority opinion narrows the options for those who want to be judged "normal" and hence beyond suspicion. They must stand erect and chat up the officers who approach them.​
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top