disarmed during traffic stop

[WalkingWolf]

[video=youtube;pns3_Peke30]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pns3_Peke30[/video]

Another statest hero threatening to shoot a LAC, in the back no less, yea eye!

 

[boyscout399]

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.

But they don't have to articulate it to the person they're stopping. They just need to be able to articulate it. In this instance the person was pulled over for dimmed tail lights. If the officer says on the radio before making the stop. "I'm stopping this person for dimmed tail lights, they look below code." Then he has articulated his suspicion of crime.

I never claimed an officer can search anyone so he will be safe. I claimed that he can search anyone whom he's stopped when he suspects that person of a crime. I'm saying he doesn't have to articulate that crime to the person he's stopped, he just has to be able to articulate to a judge later that AT THE TIME OF THE STOP he had RAS. That's what happened in Terry, and it was upheld.

 

[boyscout399]

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?

Your highlighted portion of Terry does not say he must be able to point out those facts to the accused. Merely that he must be able to point them out. It also doesn't say that he must point them out at all. It only says he must be ABLE to point them out. When asked by a judge at the trial, if he can point out the facts he had at the time which warranted the intrusion, then he's safe by Terry.

 

[eye95]

[video=youtube;qQGgaI-BcI4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQGgaI-BcI4[/video]

 

[WalkingWolf]

Your highlighted portion of Terry does not say he must be able to point out those facts to the accused. Merely that he must be able to point them out. It also doesn't say that he must point them out at all. It only says he must be ABLE to point them out. When asked by a judge at the trial, if he can point out the facts he had at the time which warranted the intrusion, then he's safe by Terry.

There is no judge there, just the person being detained, Christ it is obvious what they mean. But please try to continue with the denying that citizens have a right to know why they are being detained. I believe most with common sense would not need the courts to put articulate in the words, but obviously there are people who believe in a police state. Again they have to have all four elements at the time of the stop; reasonable, articulate, suspicion of a crime. It is very clear what articulate and point to mean.

BTW it does not say the they should be articulated later, it says that they must be able to point them out. It says they must have all elements for a legal stop and search. And since a judge is not there at the time they must be able to articulate them to the accused. Who in their right mind would believe that a police officer can search people just because they feel like it, without giving a good reason. It does not meet the common sense smell test, how did it work out for those Texas officers now charged with sexual assault?

 

[MKEgal]

If the officer says on the radio before making the stop. "I'm stopping this person for dimmed tail lights, they look below code." Then he has articulated his suspicion of crime.

Depends on the definition of "crime" in that state.
In WI, a simple equipment violation like that would not be a crime, as the only punishment possible is a fine.

I never claimed an officer can search anyone so he will be safe. I claimed that he can search anyone whom he's stopped when he suspects that person of a crime... he just has to be able to articulate to a judge later that AT THE TIME OF THE STOP he had RAS. That's what happened in Terry, and it was upheld.

Almost.
Terry says that if an officer has stopped (detained) someone
and has reason to believe [RAS] that the person is both armed and dangerous
then s/he may search (pat down) the person's clothing searching for (& removing) possible weapons for the duration of the arrest (stop).

"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."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZS.html

Note the conjunction: armed and dangerous. Have to satisfy both parts.
And simply being armed is not evidence of being dangerous.

 

[boyscout399]

Depends on the definition of "crime" in that state.
In WI, a simple equipment violation like that would not be a crime, as the only punishment possible is a fine.


Almost.
Terry says that if an officer has stopped (detained) someone
and has reason to believe [RAS] that the person is both armed and dangerous
then s/he may search (pat down) the person's clothing searching for (& removing) possible weapons for the duration of the arrest (stop).

"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."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZS.html

Note the conjunction: armed and dangerous. Have to satisfy both parts.
And simply being armed is not evidence of being dangerous.

So you're saying an officer can't detain someone for a "simple equipment violation?" It may be a civil crime, or a lesser crime, or a violation, or whatever you want to call it. It's a violation of the law. The Constitution does not draw lines regarding the severity of the infraction. It all comes down to: Is the detainment reasonable? Is the seizure reasonable? And the supreme court has determined that a seizure of a weapon is reasonable during a legal detainment.

 

[OC for ME]

Does Maine have a criminal negligence statute?

In Missouri, a arrest has occurred when the cop physically restrains your movements or a citizen submits to the cop's authority. The cop must at the time of the "arrest" inform the citizen by which authority he acts. A detainment in Missouri, in my view, where you submit to the cop's authority is a arrest and he must inform me of what gives him the authority to arrest/detain me. Different states different rules if you will.

Resisting a arrest is a crime. Even if it is later determined that the arrest was unlawful, or it was obviously unlawful at that time, it is still a crime to resist.

Disarming that citizen for a traffic infraction and finding that act reasonable is the foundation upon which LE places their hopes that ignorant citizens will think that they must accept the unlawful acts of LE as reasonable.

The OP should sue the carp out of that cop and his department. A cop is informed of a firearm, where no law requires such, by a citizen and he confiscates that firearm without just cause, plain and simple. That cop is a thug and deserves public ridicule. His department deserves the same treatment.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Does Maine have a criminal negligence statute?

In Missouri, a arrest has occurred when the cop physically restrains your movements or a citizen submits to the cop's authority. The cop must at the time of the "arrest" inform the citizen by which authority he acts. A detainment in Missouri, in my view, where you submit to the cop's authority is a arrest and he must inform me of what gives him the authority to arrest/detain me. Different states different rules if you will.

Resisting a arrest is a crime. Even if it is later determined that the arrest was unlawful, or it was obviously unlawful at that time, it is still a crime to resist.

Disarming that citizen for a traffic infraction and finding that act reasonable is the foundation upon which LE places their hopes that ignorant citizens will think that they must accept the unlawful acts of LE as reasonable.

I will add that I do not know any or even one police officer believes that a person should be stopped and searched without a reason being communicated to the citizen. I don't know where some people get these crazy ideas, and it really has nothing to do with the OP as the officer DID give a reason for the stop, even though it was not valid, or probably honest. So most of this discussion of informing or not of RAS is OFF TOPIC.

The OP should sue the carp out of that cop and his department. A cop is informed of a firearm, where no law requires such, by a citizen and he confiscates that firearm without just cause, plain and simple. That cop is a thug and deserves public ridicule. His department deserves the same treatment.

If the OP is being truthful, the cop had no PC or RAS to stop the OP to begin with. Any officer that stops me, and can't articulate a reasonable reason why will not only be told to bugger off, they will face a civil suit. This is not Nazi Germany even though some statists/fascists believe it is. A citizen has a right to know why he is being searched, or detained, otherwise it could be for a unlawful purpose such as robbery or sexual assault. No where in the constitution does it allow police to fondle citizens without just cause.

Since the OP was notified of the alleged RAS, this discussion IMO is off topic. The statists are going to claim that cops can do anything they want no matter what the facts, the courts, and the constitution states.

 

[OC for ME]

My summary of Missouri law illustrates the need for all states to enact laws, or strengthen laws, that clearly define what a arrest is. That cop disarmed the citizen and did so only because he could, knowing that he would very likely suffer no repercussions. I hope that the OP changes that mindset and sues that cop and his department.

A "good" cop finds a way to not treat a citizen during a traffic stop as a quasi-felon during a traffic stop if he can. The vast majority of cops do just such a thing. Here in Missouri cops will know whether or not that you might be armed if you have a CCW endorsement. I have yet to encounter a cop who, once "armed" with this knowledge, pursues this data point any further.

I have had a sideways glance, once, but that was the extent of that officer's pursuit, if you will. I sent a e-mail to his boss commending him on his professionalism.

Unfortunately some members of OCDO hold a view similar to the cop in the OP, that citizens are inherently dangerous and should be treated as such, regardless of the totality of the facts.

 

[WalkingWolf]

My summary of Missouri law illustrates the need for all states to enact laws, or strengthen laws, that clearly define what a arrest is. That cop disarmed the citizen and did so only because he could, knowing that he would very likely suffer no repercussions. I hope that the OP changes that mindset and sues that cop and his department.

A "good" cop finds a way to not treat a citizen during a traffic stop as a quasi-felon during a traffic stop if he can. The vast majority of cops do just such a thing. Here in Missouri cops will know whether or not that you might be armed if you have a CCW endorsement. I have yet to encounter a cop who, once "armed" with this knowledge, pursues this data point any further.

I have had a sideways glance, once, but that was the extent of that officer's pursuit, if you will. I sent a e-mail to his boss commending him on his professionalism.

Unfortunately some members of OCDO hold a view similar to the cop in the OP, that citizens are inherently dangerous and should be treated as such, regardless of the totality of the facts.

I don't care if a cop assumes I am dangerous, I only care that he respects my rights and only follows the law. I don't care if he likes doughnuts, his politics, or anything else as long as he leaves my nuts alone, and my property. The OP, IMO, should not have told the officer he was armed. The notion that a cop could shoot a LAC for legally not informing them is insane.

 

[OC for ME]

I agree. It matters not what a cop thinks it matters only as to how he acts. But, the reality is that we must be interested in what a cop thinks until we can change their culture to one that promotes liberty and decries tyranny.

 

[boyscout399]

If the OP is being truthful, the cop had no PC or RAS to stop the OP to begin with. Any officer that stops me, and can't articulate a reasonable reason why will not only be told to bugger off, they will face a civil suit. This is not Nazi Germany even though some statists/fascists believe it is. A citizen has a right to know why he is being searched, or detained, otherwise it could be for a unlawful purpose such as robbery or sexual assault. No where in the constitution does it allow police to fondle citizens without just cause.

Since the OP was notified of the alleged RAS, this discussion IMO is off topic. The statists are going to claim that cops can do anything they want no matter what the facts, the courts, and the constitution states.

The OP had dimmed tail lights, which is a violation of the law. That's all the RAS the officer needs to make the stop...

 

[WalkingWolf]

The OP had dimmed tail lights, which is a violation of the law. That's all the RAS the officer needs to make the stop...

Please cite where the OP had "dimmed taillights"? Were you there? Was it YOU? Is that why you are so touchy?

The officer claimed there was "tinted taillights" NOT dimmed, and the OP stated clearly in his OP that the taillights are factory making it impossible for them to be dimmed tail lights. Stop making stuff(doo doo) up!

 

[eye95]

The only question is, "Was the stop lawful?" If it was, seizing the firearm for the duration of the stop was also lawful. If the stop was not lawful, all actions by the officer during the stop, including the seizure, are unlawful.

Since none of us knows the totality of the circumstances, none of us can know whether the officer had RAS. Should this event make it into a courtroom, it will be the judge who passes on what the cop believed was RAS. Without a judge passing judgment on the RAS, the officer's judgment is the one that will stand.

So, the OP can try to bring suit and look for that judgment, he could talk to the officer's superiors, arguing that the officer overstepped his bounds, calling for disciplinary action, or he can move on.

All the rest of this is fluff.

 

[boyscout399]

Please cite where the OP had "dimmed taillights"? Were you there? Was it YOU? Is that why you are so touchy?

The officer claimed there was "tinted taillights" NOT dimmed, and the OP stated clearly in his OP that the taillights are factory making it impossible for them to be dimmed tail lights. Stop making stuff(doo doo) up!

Dimmed, tinted, whatever. The officer reasonably thought there was a violation. They were probably dirty which caused them to appear dimmed.

I'm not touchy, but I support police who act within the law as this officer did. And if you know me and my history, I'm VERY outspoken when officers act outside the law. If the OP files a complaint about the perfectly legal stop or the perfectly legal seizure, then it's not going to go anywhere. If he tries to sue because of the perfectly legal stop or the perfectly legal seizure, then it's just going to get thrown out. That's why he should keep his complaint or a lawsuit to the unsafe handling of the firearm by the officer (pointing the gun at him while seizing it)

 

[WalkingWolf]

Dimmed, tinted, whatever. The officer reasonably thought there was a violation. They were probably dirty which caused them to appear dimmed.

I'm not touchy, but I support police who act within the law as this officer did. And if you know me and my history, I'm VERY outspoken when officers act outside the law. If the OP files a complaint about the perfectly legal stop or the perfectly legal seizure, then it's not going to go anywhere. If he tries to sue because of the perfectly legal stop or the perfectly legal seizure, then it's just going to get thrown out. That's why he should keep his complaint or a lawsuit to the unsafe handling of the firearm by the officer (pointing the gun at him while seizing it)

NO it is not alright, you were not there, and you keep making stuff up. I don't care how outspoken you are, if you are going to make claims, BACK them up!

You have no idea if it was a perfectly legal stop, and after the posts you have posted I would damn well take the word of the OP BEFORE YOU. Also you don't have a clue whether he should sue or not. It is not your decision!

I ask you again~~Where you there?

 

[OC for ME]

Dimmed, tinted, whatever. The officer reasonably thought there was a violation. They were probably dirty which caused them to appear dimmed. <snip>

The seizure of the firearm could be deemed unlawful given the totality of the circumstances, as is required by Terry and now by a decision based on a North Carolina incident. The OP is about being disarmed and not being stopped. The OP should retain legal counsel and sue that cop and his department.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Tinted lenses are not dimmer, using a blue dot tricks the brain into believing the light is brighter even though it is not. Normally the brain only sees the red light wave, but with a blue dot the brain now sees two light waves looking brighter, even though the light does not look purple but a very bright almost white red. It is the same principle with television, there is no yellow, it is green, red, and blue. But when the brain sees green and red light it is tricked into believing it is yellow.

I was not there so I don't know the type of tail lights that were on the OP's vehicle, I take his word they were indeed stock, with no blue dot. My first thought was that the OP, hopefully he will tell us, had the factory very bright led tail lights on some of the newer vehicles. Which is very much legal and any intelligent HONEST police officer would know they are legal. It seems that the officer was dimwitted to say the least, or outright criminal to say the most. But making assumptions that have no basis in fact are very dim. And the best person to decide if their is a lawsuit or not is a attorney, not someone dim.

<Disclaimer> No offense is intended to the legally dim, or brightly challenged.

 

[boyscout399]

Tinted lenses are not dimmer, using a blue dot tricks the brain into believing the light is brighter even though it is not. Normally the brain only sees the red light wave, but with a blue dot the brain now sees two light waves looking brighter, even though the light does not look purple but a very bright almost white red. It is the same principle with television, there is no yellow, it is green, red, and blue. But when the brain sees green and red light it is tricked into believing it is yellow.

I was not there so I don't know the type of tail lights that were on the OP's vehicle, I take his word they were indeed stock, with no blue dot. My first thought was that the OP, hopefully he will tell us, had the factory very bright led tail lights on some of the newer vehicles. Which is very much legal and any intelligent HONEST police officer would know they are legal. It seems that the officer was dimwitted to say the least, or outright criminal to say the most. But making assumptions that have no basis in fact are very dim. And the best person to decide if their is a lawsuit or not is a attorney, not someone dim.

<Disclaimer> No offense is intended to the legally dim, or brightly challenged.

Being from North Carolina, you may not realize that in Maine we get a lot of snow and that cars get VERY dirty VERY fast. The officer may have thought they were dimmed if they were overly dirty. And yes, dirty headlights or tail lights are a violation of state inspection laws.

I'm not aware of the North Carolina decision you are referencing. Is it a federal case? Can you link it? Please do not insult my intelligence as I believe personal attacks are against the forum rules.