disarmed during traffic stop

[WalkingWolf]

Statists are like liberals they just like to make stuff up...

"Give me liberty, or give me death."

 

[boyscout399]

Please provide the actual words in the case where the courts have said that a police officer does not have to inform of RAS?


I believe the fact that the courts have used the word articulate, not secret, or even leaving the words out indicates they must be able to give reason/articulate the purpose of the detention. This is not the case for probable cause for arrest which is given in court, but again many states a officer must inform why the person is arrested. RAS is necessary for a Terry stop, and it has to be there at the time, so it must be able to be articulated, if it cannot, it is not valid.

Why does common sense always elude statists?

Actually, the courts use the word Articulable. Or able to be articulated. That means that it needs to be able to be articulated, not that it must be articulated at the time of the stop.

Also, since McBeth always likes to say it's up to a judge, then it's the judge, not you on the street who needs to be articulated to.

 

[boyscout399]

Please provide the actual words in the case where the courts have said that a police officer does not have to inform of RAS?

I don't believe the Supreme Court has ever used Articulable in dealing with these cases. They've always just said Reasonable Suspicion. Some states require Reasonable Articulable Suspicion, but the Supreme Court only requires Reasonable Suspicion. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Nowhere in Terry does it imply that an officer needs to reveal his suspicions to the suspect.

From Terry:

We merely hold today that, where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where, in the course of investigating this behavior, he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, 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. [p31] 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.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Actually, the courts use the word Articulable. Or able to be articulated. That means that it needs to be able to be articulated, not that it must be articulated at the time of the stop.

Also, since McBeth always likes to say it's up to a judge, then it's the judge, not you on the street who needs to be articulated to.

They have to have all elements AT THE TIME of the stop for it to be legal, otherwise it would just be RS. PC is only needed for a arrest, but must be later articulated in court, RAS is at the time of the stop, though the courts may later decide if it was reasonable. David is correct that it is finally determined in court whether the officers/s acted reasonably, but the elements must be there at the time of the stop. If the police cannot articulate their suspicion for the stop then it is not legal. This is not the Soviet Union!

Read the recent decision in NC regarding felon in possession where the suspicion(hunches, and policy) were found to be unreasonable. And because the defendant followed David's advice not to submit, he was later cleared of the charges. There was also not any indication by the case that the officers even told the defendant why. Blanket searches for no reason in the US are not legal, there must be a reason and that reason has to be reasonable and articulated.

BTW where in that clip does it say the officer can search for no reason? You are trying to claim a officer can search anyone so he will be safe, and that is a lie.

 

[WalkingWolf]

They have to have all elements AT THE TIME of the stop for it to be legal, otherwise it would just be RS. PC is only needed for a arrest, but must be later articulated in court, RAS is at the time of the stop, though the courts may later decide if it was reasonable. David is correct that it is finally determined in court whether the officers/s acted reasonably, but the elements must be there at the time of the stop. If the police cannot articulate their suspicion for the stop then it is not legal. This is not the Soviet Union!

Read the recent decision in NC regarding felon in possession where the suspicion(hunches, and policy) were found to be unreasonable. And because the defendant followed David's advice not to submit, he was later cleared of the charges. There was also not any indication by the case that the officers even told the defendant why. Blanket searches for no reason in the US are not legal, there must be a reason and that reason has to be reasonable and articulated.

BTW where in that clip does it say the officer can search for no reason? You are trying to claim a officer can search anyone so he will be safe, and that is a lie.

Not to mention that NYC got slapped down for doing what YOU claim is legal. http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20...at_for_stop_and_frisk_and_a_huge_win_for.html

You forgot this portion of Terry V Ohio

"Nonetheless, the notions which underlie both the warrant procedure and the requirement of probable cause remain fully relevant in this context. In order to assess the reasonableness of Officer McFadden’s conduct as a general proposition, it is necessary “first to focus upon the governmental interest which allegedly justifies official intrusion upon the constitutionally protected interests of the private citizen,” for there is “no ready test for determining reasonableness other than by balancing the need to search [or seize] against the invasion which the search [or seizure] entails.” ... And in justifying the particular intrusions the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. ... "

Again you do know the meaning of articulate don't you?

 

[eye95]

Actually, the courts use the word Articulable. Or able to be articulated. That means that it needs to be able to be articulated, not that it must be articulated at the time of the stop.

Also, since McBeth always likes to say it's up to a judge, then it's the judge, not you on the street who needs to be articulated to.

It is indeed up to the judge (whose decision is also subject to oversight) to oversee the decisions of the officer. However, if the judge agrees LATER that the RAS existed, the RAS will have existed at the time of the stop, contrary to what a certain poster is stating here. The judge does not bring the RAS into existence; he merely confirms or denies its existence AT THE TIME OF THE STOP.

If that RAS existed, making the stop lawful, and if the State laws require informing the LEO that one is armed, and if one then does not so inform, then he has committed a crime. Folks, be wary of legal puffery coming from some basement out over the Internet, such as wild boasts that one will never inform a LEO of his armed status. Check the law for yourselves!

 

[WalkingWolf]

It is indeed up to the judge (whose decision is also subject to oversight) to oversee the decisions of the officer. However, if the judge agrees LATER that the RAS existed, the RAS will have existed at the time of the stop, contrary to what a certain poster is stating here. The judge does not bring the RAS into existence; he merely confirms or denies its existence AT THE TIME OF THE STOP.

If that RAS existed, making the stop lawful, and if the State laws require informing the LEO that one is armed, and if one then does not so inform, then he has committed a crime. Folks, be wary of legal puffery coming from some basement out over the Internet, such as wild boasts that one will never inform a LEO of his armed status. Check the law for yourselves!

And in some cases the judge or appellate court judges rule that RAS did not exist and that it did not exist AT THE TIME OF THE STOP. Which is all mute if the search is CONSENSUAL. David is correct!

Duhhhhhhhhh!

 

[davidmcbeth]

You sir are out of line with this constant harassment of David.

I don't mind -- I am French !!!

We argue about what side of the Sun is hotter...

 

[eye95]

Not harassing it. Just calling out its horrible "legal" advice. It is going to get someone jailed, or worse, when someone does what it suggests can be done--such as never informing the police when it is armed.

Check the laws for yourself, folks. Heeding to some things posted on this forum can be hazardous to your legal health or to your life!

 

[davidmcbeth]

Again, folks, do not take this poster's stupidly posted words seriously. Taking that stance could get you killed and eventually will get you jailed. .

Oh, one takes a risk when arguing about an unlawful act. No doubt.

But I have threatened citizens arrest with the friendly (too friendly) TSA on numerous occasions. One example is back in 2008 I was traveling with my minor boy and the TSA agent said he wanted to put his hands down my boy's pants--that it was policy so he said. I told him my policy was to arrest anyone who tries to ... well they did not like that answer and soon several folks were at the station telling me I had to let them shove their hands down my boys pants .. I politely declined and re-affrimed my right to a citizen's arrest and told them "tell your story to a judge"... we went through the checkpoint without having our genitals adjusted. And I have traveled again and again going through those stupid TSA checkpoints. I do not allow them to nudo-scan or to touch my crotch ... and they don't - they know what they are doing is BS...

Now lets face it...most people who get pulled over in a traffic stop know that the police has RAS .... you can certainly ask them why they pulled you over & 99% of the time, they'll tell you ... and most of the time I get pulled over its for some minor alleged offense of speeding or some other nonsense. When you know that they don't then that's when you need to decide what you want to do.

Another recent event is when I tried to attend a committee meeting before my state's legislature ... CT has statue 1-225, section e states:

(e) No member of the public shall be required, as a condition to attendance at a meeting of any such body, to register the member's name, or furnish other information, or complete a questionnaire or otherwise fulfill any condition precedent to the member's attendance.

The meeting was a hearing on gun control ... and they had metal detectors up (first time I have seen them at the legislative building) and it caused folks to wait outside in the cold for hours prior to gaining entry. Now they began asking me a bunch of questions which I refused to answer & they did not allow me entry into the meeting. After all, going through a metal detector is covered under "any" and refusing to answer questions is covered under "questionnaire" in 1-225(e). So I had 2 options ... let them kick me out or arrest them. Well, in our state, such meeting violations can result in a nulling of the meeting and voiding further actions related to the meeting ... so I let them kick me out and I filed a complaint that is currently pending. But I could have arrested them for kidnapping...they had no RAS, and the law specifically prohibits their activities of that day. And guess what? Have not seen the metal detectors since....and I spoke to the head of security and he told me that of all the thousands of people who spent 2 hours getting into that one meeting, only 1 complaint was filed ~ me. I told others in line that they could not do this but they wanted to get into the meeting to speak ... see, these pro-2nd amendment folks were willing to give up their 4th amendment rights so easily ...

And I never say "2nd amendment right" when speaking to legislators anymore ... I say a right contained within our "bill of rights" ... making them argue that our bill of rights is garbage.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Not harassing it. Just calling out its horrible "legal" advice. It is going to get someone jailed, or worse, when someone does what it suggests can be done--such as never informing the police when it is armed.

Check the laws for yourself, folks. Heeding to some things posted on this forum can be hazardous to your legal health or to your life!

Maybe you could back up this claim with some cites?

 

[fighting_for_freedom]

Statists are like liberals they just like to make stuff up...

"Give me liberty, or give me death."

I bet I'm being dense here, but to whom and how is this directed?

 

[WalkingWolf]

I bet I'm being dense here, but to whom and how is this directed?

It's not directed at you, just a statement, and agreeing with liberty. BTW liberty is not illegal YET...

 

[Flashlight]

Again, folks, do not take this poster's stupidly posted words seriously. Taking that stance could get you killed and eventually will get you jailed. Some States require that you inform an officer if you are armed when he has detained you. Again, since you have no way of knowing at the time whether a detention is lawful, claiming that it wasn't may fail in court, and you may find yourself convicted of a crime.

Don't take STUPID advice on the law from the Internet. There are too many boastful people who don't know it near as well as they claim they do, trying to get you to try out their stupidity for them. Let them make the bone-headed choices. Some of them NEED to be in jail!

Do not even take any poster's word, not even my word, for the law. Ask a lawyer, or read the law for yourself.

BTW, the quoted sentence seems to be advocating breaking the law. That is against OCDO rules.

Remember this is the Maine forum. There is no law in Maine that requires a person to inform an officer that he is armed.
So you believe that David Mcbeth and I need to be in jail for advocating that people not break the law and not tell an offier that they are armed?

 

[WalkingWolf]

Remember this is the Maine forum. There is no law in Maine that requires a person to inform an officer that he is armed.
So you believe that David Mcbeth and I need to be in jail for advocating that people not break the law and not tell an offier that they are armed?

More than that, he is implying that the officer will break the law and shoot you for being a lawfully armed citizen. He seems to be advocating illegal and dangerous behavior by government agents.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Remember this is the Maine forum. There is no law in Maine that requires a person to inform an officer that he is armed.
So you believe that David Mcbeth and I need to be in jail for advocating that people not break the law and not tell an offier that they are armed?

eye is both a pro-gunner (yea!) and a pro-gov't lackey (for lack of a better term)

He's an enigma wrapped in a riddle surrounded by mystery

 

[eye95]

Remember this is the Maine forum. There is no law in Maine that requires a person to inform an officer that he is armed.
So you believe that David Mcbeth and I need to be in jail for advocating that people not break the law and not tell an offier that they are armed?

He is not from Maine and made a broad statement that was not limited to Maine or his State or any other particular State. I have been clear in all my posts to limit what I say about the matter to include "if State law requires..." He makes these pronouncements all over the site and makes zero consideration for what the law actually requires.

If you are in Maine, and the law is as you say, then I would agree 100% that you should not volunteer information that the law does not require. However, if you are traveling and pass through Ohio, for example, and are stopped by an officer, I suggest you not follow the advice to "never" inform an officer that you are armed. In Alabama, you'd be OK. I have not read the law in any other States. But I would never say anything so stupid as that I'd "never" inform an officer that I am armed. Others here do not care the effect their statements might have on some poor unsuspecting soul who reads what they write and takes it to heart.

So, no, I don't believe that YOU should be in jail.

 

[davidmcbeth]

So, no, I don't believe that YOU should be in jail.

That's mighty nice of you to say .... (oh, you are NOT a criminal .... sweet)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR9HuRUUTbs at 1:03

Never convicted .... hahaha

 

[WalkingWolf]

Wasn't that officer in Ohio fired for threatening a LAC with deadly force for legal carry? Seems it is illegal to shoot or threaten to shoot lawful citizens even in Ohio. Too bad eye...

Here is your hero;

[video=youtube;VG2TSCpSEVw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VG2TSCpSEVw[/video]

 

[davidmcbeth]

ROIDS .... lower the dosage dude


like what the guy says at the end "I respect LEOs" .... rofl



I've heard worse .... this one just got on tape ...