Crime What did the cops do wrong today Megathread Vol. 6 ? (who knows, lots of cop threads)

[nhbbear]

At the core of both Mimms, and Terry, is the balance between Officer safety(and others), versus the intrusion on the Rights of the Civilian, during investigative encounters. This was a ruse to put their hands on him(which they did), AND search the vehicle without lawful justification, which they would have.

LEO's NEVER ask for permission to search when they have lawful justification to do so. If the "furtive gestures" in fact did initially cause the Officers safety concerns, they would have had him exit the vehicle immediately. Furthermore, the 8 minutes of peaceful cooperative interaction should have reduced that fear. That you would try and argue anything on these Officer's behalf is troubling. Multiple lives were jeopardized here because of these Officers insistence on performing an Illegal search.

Troubling? I was playing devils advocate. I even prefaced that by saying “had these officers made th argument in this manner…” it’s just a flip side to the discussion at hand.

 

[nhbbear]

That's not what PA v Mimms says. That case has to do with police asking someone to get out of a vehicle, noticing a bulge, and then patting him down to find a revolver. It upheld the actions of officers patting someone down that they ordered out of a car because of safety concerns. In this case, they told him to get out so they could search his car for a weapon because "furtive movements." They did it at the end of the stop after they told him he was getting a warning meaning they had zero safety concerns or not enough to get him out in the beginning or throughout the encounter. He could have refused to get out of the car at that point as well, they had no reason to get him out of the car. The detention was over, you don't get to extend it because someone says no to your search. They had no grounds for a search of the vehicle or to take him out at that point.

What I said about pa v Mimms is exactly right. You can order someone out of a vehicle to pay them down or remove them from an unsearched vehicle while you conduct an investigation-the reason for the stop. I missed it on the video where they said they were giving him a warning. It is correct that once they say that, he is free to go and has every right to refuse to have a search completed. He has that right under the 4th. I have no issue with removing him from the car due to furtive movements. There is no issue with that. But you can’t remove someone because you plan to illegally search their vehicle without permission. That isn’t what I am arguing here. I am saying that under Mimms, they can’t get back into a unsearxhed vehicle while the stop is still taking place. Again, I must have missed where they told him he was getting a warning.

 

[Renard]

That’s pretty disgusting. I am disappointed in the lack of humanity there because it comes down to police seeing people as a problem that needs solved rather than as people. The cops are operating on what the hospital told them-that she is fine and faking it. I work in a hospital as a security supervisor currently and am a retired cop, so I see both sides of this. The question becomes “what do you do with these people?” The police see a problem that is a call of service:get this woman off of hospital property(which is private property and they have the legal right to have someone removed). The woman says she can’t move, can’t get herself home, and that she is having a medical issue. What should/could the cops do in this situation? Ignore the hospital’s wishes and just leave her there? Cops don’t have many tools. Tell someone to do something. If that doesn’t work, arrest them. Now, if it is me at my hospital, I am using what we call cab vouchers for people that don’t have rides andni am putting her in a cab. If she refuses to leave, I call the police and you end up with this exact scenario.

The hospital refuses to treat her any further. The police just want her off of the property so she isn’t trespassing-they obviously prefer sue have some way to go wherever it is she needs to go, and I don’t know what the answer is to this problem. Do you?

Ruling out a stroke isn't straightforward at all. Many strokes don't show up on CT scans and need MRI to be seen, and an ongoing stroke (at the moment of arrest) would obviously have not shown up in imagery done hours ago. The hospital is criminally negligent. They should have kept her under observation, waited for family to come pick her up. I bet it's a case of the woman being low-income and the hospital being eager to blame drugs or mental illness to kick out someone that might not be able to pay, instead of fully investigating the source of her apparent confusion.

 

[nhbbear]

Ruling out a stroke isn't straightforward at all. Many strokes don't show up on CT scans and need MRI to be seen, and an ongoing stroke (at the moment of arrest) would obviously have not shown up in imagery done hours ago. The hospital is criminally negligent. They should have kept her under observation, waited for family to come pick her up. I bet it's a case of the woman being low-income and the hospital being eager to blame drugs or mental illness to kick out someone that might not be able to pay, instead of fully investigating the source of her apparent confusion.

I wouldn’t doubt that. She is probably a frequent flyer and they didn’t like her.

 

[Joshuaace]

Troubling? I was playing devils advocate. I even prefaced that by saying “had these officers made th argument in this manner…” it’s just a flip side to the discussion at hand.

That's not playing Devil's advocate. That's wearing blue goggles so often that police bias is burned into your vision.

There is no argument for bringing up furtive gestures 8 minutes in to a peaceful, cooperative encounter; as justification for EITHER a search of his person or vehicle. Or, for Officer safety while they conducted their investigation.

The moment they ordered him from the car without lawful justification, this turned from an investigative encounter, to an illegal detention. You are harping because he got back into an unsearched vehicle. The LEO's didn't have any justification to get him out in the first place. They also don't have an unalienable right to search his vehicle.

There is no excuse for the Officer's actions. It was an evidentiary fishing expedition that exceeded the boundaries of the law. The Officer's requests to search the vehicle were denied, so they made up the "furtive gesture" lie to serve as justification.

It's clear as day what happened in that video. The guys who took an Oath to uphold the Constitution of the U.S. were in fact the bad guys this time. You just keep on advocating for Devils though.

 

[Joshuaace]

What sucks is it appears they kept the body cams out of the courts for over a year while they held him without bond. The judge recently saw the video and he was released.

At least they didn't "lose" the video. I can't tell you how many times I've been provided with discovery only to find a Police Report indicating there is video, only there is no video to be found in the discovery material.

 

[SLUG1186]

What I said about pa v Mimms is exactly right. You can order someone out of a vehicle to pay them down or remove them from an unsearched vehicle while you conduct an investigation-the reason for the stop. I missed it on the video where they said they were giving him a warning. It is correct that once they say that, he is free to go and has every right to refuse to have a search completed. He has that right under the 4th. I have no issue with removing him from the car due to furtive movements. There is no issue with that. But you can’t remove someone because you plan to illegally search their vehicle without permission. That isn’t what I am arguing here. I am saying that under Mimms, they can’t get back into a unsearxhed vehicle while the stop is still taking place. Again, I must have missed where they told him he was getting a warning.

They should have done that from the jump if they actually had safety concerns, but they didn't, they are lying and you know it. Police can't use PA v Mimms to search every car they pull over. There still needs to be legit reason for them to do it. Treating every stop like a criminal investigation is part of the problem.

 

[nhbbear]

They should have done that from the jump if they actually had safety concerns, but they didn't, they are lying and you know it. Police can't use PA v Mimms to search every car they pull over. There still needs to be legit reason for them to do it. Treating every stop like a criminal investigation is part of the problem.

With PA v Mimms, you have to be consistent same as when you “conduct a vehicle inventory” you either do it every time, none of the time, or under certain circumstances. If we pull all the times you felt you needed to get a driver out of the car and it only occurs with black males, we have an issue. The reasons can be fairly straight forward-“dark night, officer felt safer having discussion with back not turned towards oncoming traffic”-to very specific-“driver made furtive movements and signals to passengers.” All the officer has to do is a. Have a justifiable stop-traffic or other reason to be legally talking to this person and b. Asking/telling the person to exit the vehicle. You now have the right to terry frisk them.

As I admitted, I watched a good portio of that video, but not intently, so I didn’t catch the warning part. As long as you have not released the subject, you can have them step out of the vehicle at any point during the stop. It may be “the subject kept looking down by his right leg where we could not see if a weapon was secreted, so he was ordered out of the vehicle.” It does not have to be at the very beginning of the stop-things happen and things change, behaviors change or become more evident-maybe you notice the subject is slurring their words a bit more now, or caught the odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from their person-now things have changed and you can get them out of the vehicle.

 

[nhbbear]

That's not playing Devil's advocate. That's wearing blue goggles so often that police bias is burned into your vision.

There is no argument for bringing up furtive gestures 8 minutes in to a peaceful, cooperative encounter; as justification for EITHER a search of his person or vehicle. Or, for Officer safety while they conducted their investigation.

The moment they ordered him from the car without lawful justification, this turned from an investigative encounter, to an illegal detention. You are harping because he got back into an unsearched vehicle. The LEO's didn't have any justification to get him out in the first place. They also don't have an unalienable right to search his vehicle.

There is no excuse for the Officer's actions. It was an evidentiary fishing expedition that exceeded the boundaries of the law. The Officer's requests to search the vehicle were denied, so they made up the "furtive gesture" lie to serve as justification.

It's clear as day what happened in that video. The guys who took an Oath to uphold the Constitution of the U.S. were in fact the bad guys this time. You just keep on advocating for Devils though.

I agree that you can’t order a person from the vehicle to prolong a stop and further fish for consent, but as I told slug, traffic stops are an ever evolving entity and maybe something in the behavior of the driver is now signaling the officer to get him out. I listed some reasons in that response, but there is no time frame where you have to get them out during the first thirty seconds of the stop.

 

[Joshuaace]

I agree that you can’t order a person from the vehicle to prolong a stop and further fish for consent, but as I told slug, traffic stops are an ever evolving entity and maybe something in the behavior of the driver is now signaling the officer to get him out. I listed some reasons in that response, but there is no time frame where you have to get them out during the first thirty seconds of the stop.

The behavior the Officer noted was the Suspects refusal to consent to a search. Merely exercising your constitutional right against unreasonable Government intrusion, doesn't cause fear in reasonabe minded people.

There is 8 minutes of video before the Officer ever mentions the furtive gestures he claims his partner observed. He didn't mention any "new" observations during the video that suggested he had a reasonable concern for Officer safety.

It was an illegal search/detention, cut and dry.

It's a damn shame the 2 Officers did not face criminal charges for their blatant disregard for the USC that they are sworn to uphold. Taking that oath should come with higher expectectations, much higher. They should face the same charges a non LEO would face for illegally detaining someone, and their punishment should be more severe. Didn't even get fired, what a crock of shit.

 

[SLUG1186]

With PA v Mimms, you have to be consistent same as when you “conduct a vehicle inventory” you either do it every time, none of the time, or under certain circumstances. If we pull all the times you felt you needed to get a driver out of the car and it only occurs with black males, we have an issue. The reasons can be fairly straight forward-“dark night, officer felt safer having discussion with back not turned towards oncoming traffic”-to very specific-“driver made furtive movements and signals to passengers.” All the officer has to do is a. Have a justifiable stop-traffic or other reason to be legally talking to this person and b. Asking/telling the person to exit the vehicle. You now have the right to terry frisk them.

As I admitted, I watched a good portio of that video, but not intently, so I didn’t catch the warning part. As long as you have not released the subject, you can have them step out of the vehicle at any point during the stop. It may be “the subject kept looking down by his right leg where we could not see if a weapon was secreted, so he was ordered out of the vehicle.” It does not have to be at the very beginning of the stop-things happen and things change, behaviors change or become more evident-maybe you notice the subject is slurring their words a bit more now, or caught the odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from their person-now things have changed and you can get them out of the vehicle.

Right, but at the time they wanted to do this, they had no legitimate reason to. I get it, they can make up whatever excuse they want and it would likely be upheld. But with body cams we can see that in this case, they were bullshittin.

 

[nhbbear]

The behavior the Officer noted was the Suspects refusal to consent to a search. Merely exercising your constitutional right against unreasonable Government intrusion, doesn't cause fear in reasonabe minded people.

There is 8 minutes of video before the Officer ever mentions the furtive gestures he claims his partner observed. He didn't mention any "new" observations during the video that suggested he had a reasonable concern for Officer safety.

It was an illegal search/detention, cut and dry.

It's a damn shame the 2 Officers did not face criminal charges for their blatant disregard for the USC that they are sworn to uphold. Taking that oath should come with higher expectectations, much higher. They should face the same charges a non LEO would face for illegally detaining someone, and their punishment should be more severe. Didn't even get fired, what a crock of shit.

The officer doesn’t have to announce “the way you keep glancing to your right is making me nervous, I am going to get you out of the car to search you now.” But that could be exactly what occurred and the parameters for the safety of the traffic stop have now changed. Before you get your panties in a twist, I am not saying that is what happened in this instance, as you seem wont to do-I am saying that making a decision to get someone out of the car can occur immediately or 8 mins into the stop. It doesn’t matter. What does matter is that once they told him he was getting a warning, he was almost free to go, then they can’t hold him up further for refusing a search. It is an old interdiction training that I had in 2004 or so, where you get them relaxed and agreeing with something you say and then say “well, I am going to get you on your way, but can I search real quick just to say I did it so it looks good for my bosses-it won’t take but a minute.” The officer that taught this course said that the suspects get used to agreeing with you and most of the time, agree and this was how he got his biggest scores. I have told people that I was calling for a k9 because I observed white powder on their floor and I suspected it was cocaine or they could just let me search and save a step and most of them agreed, some even handing me the drugs. I was never big on traffic stops and rarely did them. If I did, it was because the car just left a crack house and I already knew what was inside the car and what I really wanted was inside the house, so make the arrest on the user to get you to the dealer.

Again, don’t twist things into something it’s not. I am not defending these officers or their actions. I agree that their further detention of this guy was not justified and anything they found after that point is irrelevant. I am saying that with a little different wording and saying the right thing at the right time could make this incident play out very differently. I don’t see anything that warrants charges, though. Lawsuit, yeah sure. But not criminal charges for a stop that went on too long and the guy decides he is leaving without their say so yet.

 

[nhbbear]

Right, but at the time they wanted to do this, they had no legitimate reason to. I get it, they can make up whatever excuse they want and it would likely be upheld. But with body cams we can see that in this case, they were bullshittin.

No, they wanted to prolong the stop to try and talk him into a search. Where it is gray is that they are still talking to him and he just gets in the car and starts to drive away. You can’t do that h til the officer says you are free to go. I think had they told him don’t get into th car yet, you’re not quite free yet, and he continued to get into the vehicle to drive away, the officers would have been fine but since it came in the refusal to search, it seemed like they were stopping him for refusing rather than he wasn’t yet released.

 

[SLUG1186]

No, they wanted to prolong the stop to try and talk him into a search. Where it is gray is that they are still talking to him and he just gets in the car and starts to drive away. You can’t do that h til the officer says you are free to go. I think had they told him don’t get into th car yet, you’re not quite free yet, and he continued to get into the vehicle to drive away, the officers would have been fine but since it came in the refusal to search, it seemed like they were stopping him for refusing rather than he wasn’t yet released.

No they wouldn't have, he was free to go when they gave him his shit back. It's not a grey area, the stop was over. They had no grounds at that point to order him out. Now that cameras are everywhere and people are starting to recognize just how abusive current police practices are, it's going to be harder and harder to bullshit their way out when it's on camera. The very people who swear to uphold the constitution, constantly wiping their ass with it.

 

[nhbbear]

No they wouldn't have, he was free to go when they gave him his shit back. It's not a grey area, the stop was over. They had no grounds at that point to order him out. Now that cameras are everywhere and people are starting to recognize just how abusive current police practices are, it's going to be harder and harder to bullshit their way out when it's on camera. The very people who swear to uphold the constitution, constantly wiping their ass with it.

Apparently, I am going to have to watch that video again or actually watch it instead of playing call of duty and watching it, because I didn’t see them give him his shit back. Hence why i keep referring to the stop not quite being over yet. Once the cops give you your shit, get. Once they do that, he needs to leave asap, but in a slow and lawful manner of course.

Things are starting to make a little
More sense now about these comments. I will just shut up and watch the video now

 

[Joshuaace]

But with body cams we can see that in this case, they were bullshittin .

Yes they were.

All the officer has to do is a. Have a justifiable stop-traffic or other reason to be legally talking to this person and b. Asking/telling the person to exit the vehicle. You now have the right to terry frisk them.

Wrong. Mimms authorizes the inconvenience of briefly removing someone from their places(vehicle) for Officer safety. It does not authorize the search of their Person, places, or things; which is a much greater intrusion. Exiting the vehicle wasn't the justification for the "frisk" in Mimms, the observance of a pistol shaped bulge in his pocket is what rightly authorized that frisk. It still takes the requirements set forth in Terry to justify a frisk. Simply exiting a vehicle to be face to face at the Officers request, doesn't by itself justify a Terry frisk.

In the Kary Jarvis case the investigation was over, except they hadn't searched him yet, and they were hell bent on doing just that. Shit like this isn't uncommon at all.

 

[nhbbear]

Yes they were.


Wrong. Mimms authorizes the inconvenience of briefly removing someone from their places(vehicle) for Officer safety. It does not authorize the search of their Person, places, or things; which is a much greater intrusion. Exiting the vehicle wasn't the justification for the "frisk" in Mimms, the observance of a pistol shaped bulge in his pocket is what rightly authorized that frisk. It still takes the requirements set forth in Terry to justify a frisk. Simply exiting a vehicle to be face to face at the Officers request, doesn't by itself justify a Terry frisk.

In the Kary Jarvis case the investigation was over, except they hadn't searched him yet, and they were hell bent on doing just that. Shit like this isn't uncommon at all.

If a police officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is or has occurred, they can detain a subject. During that detention, the officer, per terry v Ohio, Pat the subject down during the investigation. This is not a search, but a Pat down for weapons. When an officer stops a motorist and removes them per pa v Mimms, they are now speaking to that person face to face and the officer CAN do a terry frisk to ensure the subject is unarmed. The only time I can imagine the officer wouldn’t do a pat down is if the ONLY reason they are removing them from the vehicle is because of a hazardous issue-road conditions. If you get an 80 year old woman out of the vehicle during a traffic stop, again, I am assuming so the officer or driver doesn’t get hit by oncoming motorists, you’re not going to conduct a Pat down. It’s not automatic, but what is the point of getting someone out of a car for other reasons than environmental safety if you are not going to Pat them down? If you have a subject that you remove from the vehicle and they refuse the pat down, they are getting arrested.

 

[Joshuaace]

This is the reason I said "troubling" in a previous response to one of your posts. You know enough case law to be dangerous to yourself and others. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S.C. grants us protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. Reasonable searches include the following:

1) A search with a Warrant issued upon probable cause. (USC IV)
2) A search incident to arrest
3) A protective "frisk, or pat down". Only for weapons that could potentially be a danger during the investigative detention. (Terry v Ohio)

That's it! There is no, "I'm now face to face with a Civilian and I'm afraid" exception. Like you seem to think Mimms is. LEO's come face to face with the public all the damn time. Merely being face to face with someone isn't a reasonable fear. Both Terry and Mimms were face to face with LEO's, but that ftf alone is not what justified the frisk of Terry and Mimms. Terry got frisked because the LEO confronted 3 people because he thought they were about to rob a Store. He was outnumbered 3-1, suspected a robbery was in process, that the individuals might be armed, and they did not cooperate with the Officer's inquiry. As I've already told you, Mimms was frisked because of the obvious gun shaped bulge in his pocket.

If a police officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is or has occurred, they can detain a subject. During that detention, the officer, per terry v Ohio, Pat the subject down during the investigation.

Did you stop reading at that point? This is the Heart and Soul of Terry. These 5 conditions have been the standard for Stop and Frisk since 1968.

" We merely hold today that
1) where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot
2) and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous,
3) where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman
4) and makes reasonable inquiries,
5) and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety,

he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. Such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and any weapons seized may properly be introduced in evidence against the person from whom they were taken."

So to recap. We have 3 basic types of reasonable searches. With a Warrant; Incident to Arrest; Terry Frisk. That you've presented yourself as an expert on the topic; but are willing to dig your heels in to being face to face as justification for a Terry Frisk; that's pretty disturbing.

This is not a search, but a Pat down for weapons. When an officer stops a motorist and removes them per pa v Mimms, they are now speaking to that person face to face and the officer CAN do a terry frisk to ensure the subject is unarmed.

That's wrong. When ALL 5 conditions of Terry have been met a Terry frisk is permitted. Face to face contact in and of itself doesn't meet ANY of those conditions. If you are in fact a retired LEO, it saddens me to think of how many People's Rights you may have violated if that's your understanding. Your unreasonable fear of face to face encounters is not justification for you putting your hands on me in any way. It is enough reason for me to question if You should be carrying a Gun and Badge though.

The only time I can imagine the officer wouldn’t do a pat down is if the ONLY reason they are removing them from the vehicle is because of a hazardous issue-road conditions.

Stomach is in knots at this point. Not sure if this is confessions of a dirty cop, or fantasies of a bored Sherbro.

but what is the point of getting someone out of a car for other reasons than environmental safety if you are not going to Pat them down?

Because it's a minimal inconvenience of the suspect during the investigative detention relative to the additional safety that it can afford the LEO. A search or frisk is a more intrusive, and thus requires a higher standard of justification. That justification is set forth in Terry, which you apparently don't comprehend, despite citing the case.

If you have a subject that you remove from the vehicle and they refuse the pat down, they are getting arrested.

You know what happens when you illegally detain someone? Kary Jarvis drags your ass down the street, with the added benefit of not facing charges, AND filing a civil suit.


Why do you think it's SOP to have multiple LEO's present for field sobriety testing? It's because the tests themselves are investigative procedures into a crime that is non violent in nature. One set of eyes to perform the tests, one to maintain the safety of the test area without the intrusion of a Terry frisk which is not warranted by the situation.

 

[nhbbear]

This is the reason I said "troubling" in a previous response to one of your posts. You know enough case law to be dangerous to yourself and others. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S.C. grants us protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. Reasonable searches include the following:

1) A search with a Warrant issued upon probable cause. (USC IV)
2) A search incident to arrest
3) A protective "frisk, or pat down". Only for weapons that could potentially be a danger during the investigative detention. (Terry v Ohio)

That's it! There is no, "I'm now face to face with a Civilian and I'm afraid" exception. Like you seem to think Mimms is. LEO's come face to face with the public all the damn time. Merely being face to face with someone isn't a reasonable fear. Both Terry and Mimms were face to face with LEO's, but that ftf alone is not what justified the frisk of Terry and Mimms. Terry got frisked because the LEO confronted 3 people because he thought they were about to rob a Store. He was outnumbered 3-1, suspected a robbery was in process, that the individuals might be armed, and they did not cooperate with the Officer's inquiry. As I've already told you, Mimms was frisked because of the obvious gun shaped bulge in his pocket.





Did you stop reading at that point? This is the Heart and Soul of Terry. These 5 conditions have been the standard for Stop and Frisk since 1968.

" We merely hold today that
1) where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot
2) and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous,
3) where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman
4) and makes reasonable inquiries,
5) and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety,

he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. Such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and any weapons seized may properly be introduced in evidence against the person from whom they were taken."

So to recap. We have 3 basic types of reasonable searches. With a Warrant; Incident to Arrest; Terry Frisk. That you've presented yourself as an expert on the topic; but are willing to dig your heels in to being face to face as justification for a Terry Frisk; that's pretty disturbing.



That's wrong. When ALL 5 conditions of Terry have been met a Terry frisk is permitted. Face to face contact in and of itself doesn't meet ANY of those conditions. If you are in fact a retired LEO, it saddens me to think of how many People's Rights you may have violated if that's your understanding. Your unreasonable fear of face to face encounters is not justification for you putting your hands on me in any way. It is enough reason for me to question if You should be carrying a Gun and Badge though.





Stomach is in knots at this point. Not sure if this is confessions of a dirty cop, or fantasies of a bored Sherbro.





Because it's a minimal inconvenience of the suspect during the investigative detention relative to the additional safety that it can afford the LEO. A search or frisk is a more intrusive, and thus requires a higher standard of justification. That justification is set forth in Terry, which you apparently don't comprehend, despite citing the case.



You know what happens when you illegally detain someone? Kary Jarvis drags your ass down the street, with the added benefit of not facing charges, AND filing a civil suit.


Why do you think it's SOP to have multiple LEO's present for field sobriety testing? It's because the tests themselves are investigative procedures into a crime that is non violent in nature. One set of eyes to perform the tests, one to maintain the safety of the test area without the intrusion of a Terry frisk which is not warranted by the situation.

I disagree with you, therefore I was a dirty cop. Stfu stooge. They know this guy. They knew ti look for needles. Even knew that he had just gotten out. They know his violent past or potential for it and for being armed. This would pass terry all day long

 

[oldshadow]

This is the reason I said "troubling" in a previous response to one of your posts. You know enough case law to be dangerous to yourself and others. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S.C. grants us protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. Reasonable searches include the following:

1) A search with a Warrant issued upon probable cause. (USC IV)
2) A search incident to arrest
3) A protective "frisk, or pat down". Only for weapons that could potentially be a danger during the investigative detention. (Terry v Ohio)

That's it! There is no, "I'm now face to face with a Civilian and I'm afraid" exception. Like you seem to think Mimms is. LEO's come face to face with the public all the damn time. Merely being face to face with someone isn't a reasonable fear. Both Terry and Mimms were face to face with LEO's, but that ftf alone is not what justified the frisk of Terry and Mimms. Terry got frisked because the LEO confronted 3 people because he thought they were about to rob a Store. He was outnumbered 3-1, suspected a robbery was in process, that the individuals might be armed, and they did not cooperate with the Officer's inquiry. As I've already told you, Mimms was frisked because of the obvious gun shaped bulge in his pocket.





Did you stop reading at that point? This is the Heart and Soul of Terry. These 5 conditions have been the standard for Stop and Frisk since 1968.

" We merely hold today that
1) where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot
2) and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous,
3) where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman
4) and makes reasonable inquiries,
5) and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety,

he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. Such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and any weapons seized may properly be introduced in evidence against the person from whom they were taken."

So to recap. We have 3 basic types of reasonable searches. With a Warrant; Incident to Arrest; Terry Frisk. That you've presented yourself as an expert on the topic; but are willing to dig your heels in to being face to face as justification for a Terry Frisk; that's pretty disturbing.



That's wrong. When ALL 5 conditions of Terry have been met a Terry frisk is permitted. Face to face contact in and of itself doesn't meet ANY of those conditions. If you are in fact a retired LEO, it saddens me to think of how many People's Rights you may have violated if that's your understanding. Your unreasonable fear of face to face encounters is not justification for you putting your hands on me in any way. It is enough reason for me to question if You should be carrying a Gun and Badge though.





Stomach is in knots at this point. Not sure if this is confessions of a dirty cop, or fantasies of a bored Sherbro.





Because it's a minimal inconvenience of the suspect during the investigative detention relative to the additional safety that it can afford the LEO. A search or frisk is a more intrusive, and thus requires a higher standard of justification. That justification is set forth in Terry, which you apparently don't comprehend, despite citing the case.



You know what happens when you illegally detain someone? Kary Jarvis drags your ass down the street, with the added benefit of not facing charges, AND filing a civil suit.


Why do you think it's SOP to have multiple LEO's present for field sobriety testing? It's because the tests themselves are investigative procedures into a crime that is non violent in nature. One set of eyes to perform the tests, one to maintain the safety of the test area without the intrusion of a Terry frisk which is not warranted by the situation.

Forgot one if you on parole per the release conditions you are subject to search anytime and that I believe includes anything in your possession. Like a vehicle you are in control of or in most places a home you are in.

I believe I have that correct.