It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Let me see, spend 48 hours in jail compared to living 25 years to life in prison.
Ignorance of how the system works is a problem. I dont have to have probable cause to stop someone. Check the following:
You guys can cite all the court cases you want. In the end, pointing this out to an Officer will most likely do absolutely no good.
1. The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, "protects people, not places," and therefore applies as much to the citizen on the streets as well as at home or elsewhere.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
2. The issue in this case is not the abstract propriety of the police conduct, but the admissibility against petitioner of the evidence uncovered by the search and seizure.
3. The exclusionary rule cannot properly be invoked to exclude the products of legitimate and restrained police investigative techniques, and this Court's approval of such techniques should not discourage remedies other than the exclusionary rule to curtail police abuses for which that is not an effective sanction.
4. The Fourth Amendment applies to "stop and frisk" procedures such as those followed here.
(a) Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
(b) A careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing in an attempt to find weapons is a "search" under that Amendment.
5. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed.
(a) Though the police must, whenever practicable, secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required.
(b) The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate.
(c) The officer here was performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct when he decided to approach petitioner and his companions.
(d) An officer justified in believing that an individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed may, to neutralize the threat of physical harm, take necessary measures to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon.
A Cleveland detective (McFadden), on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, observed two strangers (petitioner and another man, Chilton) on a street corner. He saw them proceed alternately back and forth along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window, which they did for a total of about 24 times. Each completion of the route was followed by a conference between the two on a corner, at one of which they were joined by a third man (Katz) who left swiftly. Suspecting the two men of "casing a job, a stick-up," the officer followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store.
(e) A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies of the situation.
(f) An officer may make an intrusion short of arrest where he has reasonable apprehension of danger before being possessed of information justifying arrest.
6. The officer's protective seizure of petitioner and his companions and the limited search which he made were reasonable, both at their inception and as conducted.
(a) The actions of petitioner and his companions were consistent with the officer's hypothesis that they were contemplating a daylight robbery and were armed.
(b) The officer's search was confined to what was minimally necessary to determine whether the men were armed, and the intrusion, which was made for the sole purpose of protecting himself and others nearby, was confined to ascertaining the presence of weapons.
7. The revolver seized from petitioner was properly admitted into evidence against him, since the search which led to its seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
The most well-known definition of probable cause is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime". Another common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".
If I am patrolling a neighborhood in my city where we have had a lot of break ins at night, and I come cross a suspicious vehicle I have grounds in my state to stop the vehicle and check on it. The articulation is a suspicous vehilce in a high crime area that is not pulling into any house to park. Did they break the law for me to stop them - Nope.
If you can clarify Jurisidictional boundries also - That can be taken several different ways so I am not sure how you are interpreting that. In most states, Officers can take action outside of their jurisdiction if a Crime is comitted in their presence. In my state, with my certification, I have arrest authority state wide. I jsut have to submit my P.C. statement to the P.A. in whatever jurisdiction I am in.
Color of law refers to an act done under the appearane of legal authorization, when in fact, no such right existed. It applies when a person is acting under real or apparent government authority. The term is used in the federal Civil Rights Act, which gives citizens the right to sue government officials and their agents who use their authority to violate rights guaranteed by federal law.
Besides these specific prohibitions, section 1503 contains the Omnibus Clause, which states that a person who "corruptly or by threats of force, or by threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice" is guilty of the crime of obstruction of justice. This clause offers broad protection to the "due administration of justice." Federal courts have read this clause expansively to proscribe any conduct that interferes with the judicial process.
Are there officers out there who abuse their authority? There sure is, as with any profession you are bound to have people who should not be in that job. As far as your statment about getting a lawyer for stopping someone without probable cause, I would suggest you learn the differences between Probable cause and reasonable suspicion.
an objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances and that justifies stopping and sometimes searching (as by frisking) a person thought to be involved in criminal activity at the time see also reasonable cause at cause compare probable cause at cause terry stop A police officer stopping a person must be able to point to specific facts or circumstances even though the level of suspicion need not rise to that of the belief that is supported by probable cause. A reasonable suspicion is more than a hunch.
With this being said, and as I have posted in other topics, I have no issue with people holding Law Enforcement accountable. Just excersize common sense, actually take some time to learn how the law works, and how its is applied by the Executive and how it is resolved by the Judicial branch.
Please excersize common sense.
Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by whatukno
Well like I said earlier, I will take the ADVICE of a LAW PROFESSOR, A LEO, and A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE over the advice of SOME AVATAR NAMED whatukno anytime, anywhere, anywho!
As for those who think we can search a vehicle anytime we stop it, we cant. In order for LEO's to search a vehicle they must have one of the following: (Check Arizona Vs.Gant for latest refinement of searchs by LEO's)
Consent to search - You can refuse and we cannot continue. However we can, within reason, wait for a K9 to show up. USSC has ruled walking a K9 unit around a vehicle does not constiute a search in and of itself.
Warrant - Issued based on the LEO writing up a search warrant stating exactly what he is looking for. He has to (in most states) meet with the Prosecuting Attornys office to review the search warrant. Once the P.A. signs off on it, it is presented to a judge, who reviews the warrant and asks questions to determine validity / execution under law.
Contraband in Plain view - If I stop a vehicle and approach and see an open container or controlled substance, then generally speaking I can search the vehicle.
Search incident to arrest - If I am arresting the driver for DWI/DUI/Plainview exception, I can then also search the vehicle.
There have been other refinements to this, namely if I stop you for speeding, I run you, and you have a warrant for your arrest, I cannot search the vehicle unless one of the above criteria is met. My state, thanks to Arkansas and established case law in my Federal District (8th circuit) passengers in a car that has been stopped can refuse to provide identification to Law Enforcement without any action taken. A few states prohibit their officers from creating an investigation beyond the reason for the stop (stopped for speeding, then delving into a different crime).
If you are stopped for speeding, and you refuse to cooperate, you will get in trouble. When stopping a vehicle, we have to have reasonable suspicion the crime took place (IE Seeding, running a stop sigh etc). I am not asking guilt seeking questions, because I directly observed the violation.
Voluntary contact by LEO's are about the only exception where you can refuse to cooperate and walk away. If the officer has a case, chances are he will immidiately explain you are being detained.
Originally posted by Jenna
Here's the best advice I can give you:
Don't ask for advice about the police on a conspiracy site. That's like asking for a medical diagnosis here. You're just asking for trouble. After a quick read through of this thread, about half of the suggestions will do nothing but cause you more grief and you need to ask yourself if it's really worth it.
(c) The officer here was performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct when he decided to approach petitioner and his companions