User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 7:50:52 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I doubt you need a warrant to take photos of a guy in the courthouse. You do, however, need a reason to stop him. "Stop and let me take a picture." Thats a detention. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is a pretty technical area of the law, but in many hypothetical situations If I have reasonable suspicion that your are responsible for a felony I am investigating, I can detain you well after (days, weeks, maybe months) the crime has occurred to further my investigation. During this detention I can attempt to question you about it (you can choose not to talk), I can obtain your identifying information (name, date of birth, address, etc) and I could take your photograph. Then I can either arrest you or release you from the detention. Again, this is case/fact specific, but I can imagine a number of common scenarios where SFPD could detain the guy outside court to take his photograph. And there would be nothing the lawyer could legally do to stop that from happening. She shouldn't have "delayed and obstructed" his lawful investigation  First of all, the guy's identity was obviously not unknown, as he had just walked out of court. Thus, there could be no pretext of an "identification" stop, if there even is such a thing so long after a crime. That leaves the only purpose of the stop as being photography, which would involve seizing the individual's person and forcibly collecting evidence. Sound like a search warrant might be needed? Yep, the stop was unlawful and met no exigency exception that might have applied if the suspect were seen proximate and location of the crime. Finally, I think that the idea that there would be no questioning of this guy is 100% bullshit; the cops just got scared after arresting the lawyer. I doubt you need a warrant to take photos of a guy in the courthouse. You do, however, need a reason to stop him. "Stop and let me take a picture." Thats a detention. I wonder if he was on any type of parole/probation. That would change a few things also.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 7:56:14 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For real then why are you here posting? How about forget about it and go work on your reading comprehension because it is extremely lacking. My gray comment had nothing to do with violating anyone's rights. I explained it to you and your answer was go fuck yourself.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Tons of gray in LE. There should be zero grey when it comes to police and violating citizens rights.. Care to give a singular definition for "unreasonable"................. Why? Nothing I or anyone else writes on a forum is going to magically make cops or anyone else live their life honorably.......that anyone can try and say that .gov and its employees don't bend the rule of law at every opportunity to get the results they want is nuts..everyday the true meaning of our laws as written and intended by the founding fathers gets perverted more........ For real then why are you here posting? How about forget about it and go work on your reading comprehension because it is extremely lacking. My gray comment had nothing to do with violating anyone's rights. I explained it to you and your answer was go fuck yourself. Moto, if I misunderstood you, then I do apologize, sounded to me like you were saying my opinion was full of shit..if thats wrong, I am sorry... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 7:59:36 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As for Terry, It is not about safety. There is no "safety" stop detention. It is about crime. The suspect : Is committing, has committed, or is about to commit. The weapon aspect is separate and must be covered by other information/observations. It is absolutely about safety. Yes, RS needs to exist to stop in the first place, but the search is justified on the grounds of safety. "The crux of this case, however, is not the propriety of Officer McFadden's taking steps to investigate petitioner's suspicious behavior, but, rather, whether there was justification for McFadden's invasion of Terry's personal security by searching him for weapons in the course of that investigation." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Court security must really suck if you have to Terry stop someone in the Courthouse.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:03:04 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So? my opinion is mine..just as his is his....  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who besides you said anything about states rights versus constitutional rights?All I said was there should be zero grey when it comes to cops violating a citizens rights.....and 87 lawyers/prosecuters on here agree it seems... so no, I am not making up anything, you are..and in the mean time..you can go fuck yourself and your own BS...  
The smiley faces don't absolve you from the 'go fuck yourself" comment So? my opinion is mine..just as his is his.... You really don't get it do you. I'll try one more time. I'm going to type this a slowly as possible for you. -The comment was made that someone takes his job (LE) as all black and white. -I stated LE is full of gray. -You then qouted my "gray" comment ( snipped out the rest) and made a statement about there being no "grey" when it comes to violating individual rights. -I then answered you back with yeah because that's what I was talking about.
-Other poster jumped on your little BS bandwagon with a comment saying "technically" I did say that state interest trumped individual rights. -Then I told him yall were twisting my post. That the gray in LE is reasonableness, it's far from black and white. -You get all pissy and told me to go fuck myself. So show me where I said anything or inferred about violating anyone's rights. So try to comprehend this, my opinion is that an individual's Constitutional Rights trumps all. All would mean state and federal...get it, ALL. So what was your opinion now? ETS Disregard, I posted before I read your post about misunderstanding. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:04:33 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is absolutely about safety. Yes, RS needs to exist to stop in the first place, but the search is justified on the grounds of safety. "The crux of this case, however, is not the propriety of Officer McFadden's taking steps to investigate petitioner's suspicious behavior, but, rather, whether there was justification for McFadden's invasion of Terry's personal security by searching him for weapons in the course of that investigation." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/case.html Court security must really suck if you have to Terry stop someone in the Courthouse.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As for Terry, It is not about safety. There is no "safety" stop detention. It is about crime. The suspect : Is committing, has committed, or is about to commit. The weapon aspect is separate and must be covered by other information/observations. It is absolutely about safety. Yes, RS needs to exist to stop in the first place, but the search is justified on the grounds of safety. "The crux of this case, however, is not the propriety of Officer McFadden's taking steps to investigate petitioner's suspicious behavior, but, rather, whether there was justification for McFadden's invasion of Terry's personal security by searching him for weapons in the course of that investigation." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/case.html Court security must really suck if you have to Terry stop someone in the Courthouse.
Terry covered both areas. You have to separate the search (frisk) portion. The case extends beyond safety. You are missing the point that the case fully supported the basis for a RS stop. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:04:45 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is absolutely about safety. Yes, RS needs to exist to stop in the first place, but the search is justified on the grounds of safety. "The crux of this case, however, is not the propriety of Officer McFadden's taking steps to investigate petitioner's suspicious behavior, but, rather, whether there was justification for McFadden's invasion of Terry's personal security by searching him for weapons in the course of that investigation." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/case.html Court security must really suck if you have to Terry stop someone in the Courthouse.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As for Terry, It is not about safety. There is no "safety" stop detention. It is about crime. The suspect : Is committing, has committed, or is about to commit. The weapon aspect is separate and must be covered by other information/observations. It is absolutely about safety. Yes, RS needs to exist to stop in the first place, but the search is justified on the grounds of safety. "The crux of this case, however, is not the propriety of Officer McFadden's taking steps to investigate petitioner's suspicious behavior, but, rather, whether there was justification for McFadden's invasion of Terry's personal security by searching him for weapons in the course of that investigation." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/case.html Court security must really suck if you have to Terry stop someone in the Courthouse.
I was thinking the same thing. We have metal detectors here that everyone, including lawyers , have to go thru. Only exception is LE in Uniform. Roy |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:08:17 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Moto, if I misunderstood you, then I do apologize, sounded to me like you were saying my opinion was full of shit..if thats wrong, I am sorry... You did and excepted 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:10:17 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is absolutely about safety. Yes, RS needs to exist to stop in the first place, but the search is justified on the grounds of safety. "The crux of this case, however, is not the propriety of Officer McFadden's taking steps to investigate petitioner's suspicious behavior, but, rather, whether there was justification for McFadden's invasion of Terry's personal security by searching him for weapons in the course of that investigation." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/case.html Court security must really suck if you have to Terry stop someone in the Courthouse.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As for Terry, It is not about safety. There is no "safety" stop detention. It is about crime. The suspect : Is committing, has committed, or is about to commit. The weapon aspect is separate and must be covered by other information/observations. It is absolutely about safety. Yes, RS needs to exist to stop in the first place, but the search is justified on the grounds of safety. "The crux of this case, however, is not the propriety of Officer McFadden's taking steps to investigate petitioner's suspicious behavior, but, rather, whether there was justification for McFadden's invasion of Terry's personal security by searching him for weapons in the course of that investigation." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/case.html Court security must really suck if you have to Terry stop someone in the Courthouse.
Are you an attorney? Terry was a two part decision. The first part was the legality of the seizure with only RS The second part was the legality of the patdown Terry v. Ohio,392 US 1(1968)-An officer can briefly detain a person, based upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, long enough to dispel the suspicion or to allow it to rise to the level of probable cause for an arrest.
The officer is also permitted to do a limited "frisk" search of the person without a warrant. Before the officer can frisk search the subject, he must: Have articulable facts that the person could be armed with a weapon. Limit the search to pat searching the outer garments of the suspect to feel for objects that might be weapons. Only reach inside the clothing after feeling such objects. A terry stop is just slang for an investigative detention |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:11:50 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So try to comprehend this, my opinion is that an individual's Constitutional Rights trumps all. All would mean state and federal...get it, ALL. So what was your opinion now? You are right, I miss read your comment when the other poster quoted me, I apologize, and I agree with you on that......OK?I withdraw my FU..sorry....... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:12:06 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If Hayes V Florida allows fingerprinting during a terry stop of course a photo would be allowed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Held:
1. Where police have been unable to locate a person suspected of involvement in a past crime, the ability to briefly stop that person, ask questions, or check identification Still not seeing photograph. If Hayes V Florida allows fingerprinting during a terry stop of course a photo would be allowed. None of the foregoing implies that a brief detention in the field for the purpose of fingerprinting, where there is only reasonable suspicion not amounting to probable cause, is necessarily impermissible under the Fourth Amendment. In addressing the reach of a Terry stop in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 (1972), we observed that "[a] brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time." Also, just this Term, we concluded that if there are articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a criminal offense, that person may be stopped in order to identify him, to question him briefly, or to detain him briefly while attempting to obtain additional information. United States v. Hensley, supra, at 229, 232, 234. Cf. United States [470 U.S. 811, 817] v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975). There is thus support in our cases for the view that the Fourth Amendment would permit seizures for the purpose of fingerprinting, if there is reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed a criminal act, if there is a reasonable basis for believing that fingerprinting will establish or negate the suspect's connection with that crime, and if the procedure is carried out with dispatch. Cf. United States v. Place, supra. Of course, neither reasonable suspicion nor probable cause would suffice to permit the officers to make a warrantless entry into a person's house for the purpose of obtaining fingerprint identification. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980). Pretty sure Supreme Court overturned. You can't fingerprint without an arrest, I believe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:13:05 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pretty sure Supreme Court overturned. You can't fingerprint without an arrest, I believe. It's a SCOTUS decision |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:13:27 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was thinking the same thing. We have metal detectors here that everyone, including lawyers , have to go thru. Only exception is LE in Uniform. Roy Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As for Terry, It is not about safety. There is no "safety" stop detention. It is about crime. The suspect : Is committing, has committed, or is about to commit. The weapon aspect is separate and must be covered by other information/observations. It is absolutely about safety. Yes, RS needs to exist to stop in the first place, but the search is justified on the grounds of safety. "The crux of this case, however, is not the propriety of Officer McFadden's taking steps to investigate petitioner's suspicious behavior, but, rather, whether there was justification for McFadden's invasion of Terry's personal security by searching him for weapons in the course of that investigation." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/case.html Court security must really suck if you have to Terry stop someone in the Courthouse.
I was thinking the same thing. We have metal detectors here that everyone, including lawyers , have to go thru. Only exception is LE in Uniform. Roy It's was not about the safety aspect of Terry vs Ohio, it was the RS that a crime had been committed aspect of Terry vs Ohio. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:14:19 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You did and excepted
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Moto, if I misunderstood you, then I do apologize, sounded to me like you were saying my opinion was full of shit..if thats wrong, I am sorry... You did and excepted
hey, just for fun..Constitutional....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:14:31 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are right, I miss read your comment when the other poster quoted me, I apologize, and I agree with you on that......OK?I withdraw my FU..sorry....... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So try to comprehend this, my opinion is that an individual's Constitutional Rights trumps all. All would mean state and federal...get it, ALL. So what was your opinion now? You are right, I miss read your comment when the other poster quoted me, I apologize, and I agree with you on that......OK?I withdraw my FU..sorry.......
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:15:24 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
hey, just for fun..Constitutional....Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Moto, if I misunderstood you, then I do apologize, sounded to me like you were saying my opinion was full of shit..if thats wrong, I am sorry... You did and excepted
hey, just for fun..Constitutional....Drink!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:17:29 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Drink!!!!!!! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Moto, if I misunderstood you, then I do apologize, sounded to me like you were saying my opinion was full of shit..if thats wrong, I am sorry... You did and excepted
hey, just for fun..Constitutional....Drink!!!!!!! This is BYB come back with some and come on in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:18:59 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's a SCOTUS decision Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Pretty sure Supreme Court overturned. You can't fingerprint without an arrest, I believe. It's a SCOTUS decision Shit , you are correct! My bad, must be thinking of a different case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:22:30 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are you an attorney? Terry was a two part decision. The first part was the legality of the seizure with only RS The second part was the legality of the patdown A terry stop is just slang for an investigative detention A Terry stop is a stop and frisk, at least that it how it was taught when I went through law school. IIRC the "stop" part was prior caselaw. Terry didn't even contest the stop, just the search. "Petitioner does not argue that a police officer should refrain from making any investigation of suspicious circumstances until such time as he has probable cause to make an arrest; nor does he deny that police officers, in properly discharging their investigative function, may find themselves confronting persons who might well be armed and dangerous. Moreover, he does not say that an officer is always unjustified in searching a suspect to discover weapons. Rather, he says it is unreasonable for the policeman to take that step until such time as the situation evolves to a point where there is probable cause to make an arrest."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:28:44 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A Terry stop is a stop and frisk, at least that it how it was taught when I went through law school. IIRC the "stop" part was prior caselaw. Terry didn't even contest the stop, just the search. "Petitioner does not argue that a police officer should refrain from making any investigation of suspicious circumstances until such time as he has probable cause to make an arrest; nor does he deny that police officers, in properly discharging their investigative function, may find themselves confronting persons who might well be armed and dangerous. Moreover, he does not say that an officer is always unjustified in searching a suspect to discover weapons. Rather, he says it is unreasonable for the policeman to take that step until such time as the situation evolves to a point where there is probable cause to make an arrest." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Are you an attorney? Terry was a two part decision. The first part was the legality of the seizure with only RS The second part was the legality of the patdown A terry stop is just slang for an investigative detention A Terry stop is a stop and frisk, at least that it how it was taught when I went through law school. IIRC the "stop" part was prior caselaw. Terry didn't even contest the stop, just the search. "Petitioner does not argue that a police officer should refrain from making any investigation of suspicious circumstances until such time as he has probable cause to make an arrest; nor does he deny that police officers, in properly discharging their investigative function, may find themselves confronting persons who might well be armed and dangerous. Moreover, he does not say that an officer is always unjustified in searching a suspect to discover weapons. Rather, he says it is unreasonable for the policeman to take that step until such time as the situation evolves to a point where there is probable cause to make an arrest." Didn't answer, are you an attorney? stop RS that a crime is being, has been or is going to be committed. frisk Pretty simple, RS that the above stopped individual could be armed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:36:54 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The same as with anything, consent or with PC. If in public, well there is no expectation of privacy. You do know the difference in PC and RS? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I never said that I could force a suspect to submit to a picture with RS. I said I will take your picture if I need it for my investigation. If you refuse to submit to a identifing photo that I need for my investigation then I will take other measure to require that photo. How would you compel a photo during an investigation? The same as with anything, consent or with PC. If in public, well there is no expectation of privacy. You do know the difference in PC and RS? You were the one that brought up RS and PC while not actually answering how you would compel someone to have their picture taken (consent probably doesn't count as compilation). What authorities do police have to force someone that isn't under arrest to have their pictures taken when they aren't inclined to cooperate? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:40:43 PM EDT
[#21]
The two other cops just stood there and let him "arrest her for resisting arrest". They should of arrested him for false arrest. Or at the very least pulled him aside and stopped him.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:44:25 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why? Nothing I or anyone else writes on a forum is going to magically make cops or anyone else live their life honorably.......that anyone can try and say that .gov and its employees don't bend the rule of law at every opportunity to get the results they want is nuts..everyday the true meaning of our laws as written and intended by the founding fathers gets perverted more........ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Tons of gray in LE. There should be zero grey when it comes to police and violating citizens rights.. Care to give a singular definition for "unreasonable"................. Why? Nothing I or anyone else writes on a forum is going to magically make cops or anyone else live their life honorably.......that anyone can try and say that .gov and its employees don't bend the rule of law at every opportunity to get the results they want is nuts..everyday the true meaning of our laws as written and intended by the founding fathers gets perverted more........ So you can't give an answer - got it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:45:39 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So? my opinion is mine..just as his is his.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who besides you said anything about states rights versus constitutional rights?All I said was there should be zero grey when it comes to cops violating a citizens rights.....and 87 lawyers/prosecuters on here agree it seems... so no, I am not making up anything, you are..and in the mean time..you can go fuck yourself and your own BS...
The smiley faces don't absolve you from the 'go fuck yourself" comment So? my opinion is mine..just as his is his.... Your ranting & raving make more sense now that I understand you believe the part in red is written to be considered your opinion............. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:46:51 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's actually as far as you can get from a conflict of interest, since she would be representing the same individual against the same opposing party. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Originally Posted By brian4wd
Wouldn't it be a conflict of interest for a PD to take a case pro bono? Since I pay her salary don't I have a say in the matter? It feels good saying that I'd agree with you if the court assigned the case to the individual PD after the needs test has been completed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:47:00 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The two other cops just stood there and let him "arrest her for resisting arrest". They should of arrested him for false arrest. Or at the very least pulled him aside and stopped him. It's IA's job to deal with bad cops. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:47:24 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Didn't answer, are you an attorney? stop RS that a crime is being, has been or is going to be committed. frisk Pretty simple, RS that the above stopped individual could be armed. Quote HistoryQuoted: A Terry stop is a stop and frisk, at least that it how it was taught when I went through law school. IIRC the "stop" part was prior caselaw. Terry didn't even contest the stop, just the search. "Petitioner does not argue that a police officer should refrain from making any investigation of suspicious circumstances until such time as he has probable cause to make an arrest; nor does he deny that police officers, in properly discharging their investigative function, may find themselves confronting persons who might well be armed and dangerous. Moreover, he does not say that an officer is always unjustified in searching a suspect to discover weapons. Rather, he says it is unreasonable for the policeman to take that step until such time as the situation evolves to a point where there is probable cause to make an arrest." Didn't answer, are you an attorney? stop RS that a crime is being, has been or is going to be committed. frisk Pretty simple, RS that the above stopped individual could be armed. Look, y'all are going to have to understand my confusion. Not to be overly pedantic, but Terry technically was just about the search. That's why in law school a Terry stop is a stop and frisk. The "stop" part is prior law. I'm guessing that when they teach y'all they start with Terry since it is the beginning of modern jurisprudence on the issue so they probably just lump the stop part together. On the substance, yes a cop can stop to talk to someone, but that conversation ends when he or his lawyer says so.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:52:10 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd agree with you if the court assigned the case to the individual PD after the needs test has been completed. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Originally Posted By brian4wd Wouldn't it be a conflict of interest for a PD to take a case pro bono? Since I pay her salary don't I have a say in the matter? It feels good saying that I'd agree with you if the court assigned the case to the individual PD after the needs test has been completed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:52:51 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's IA's job to deal with bad cops. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The two other cops just stood there and let him "arrest her for resisting arrest". They should of arrested him for false arrest. Or at the very least pulled him aside and stopped him. It's IA's job to deal with bad cops. Given the disagreements between cops/lawyer & cops/cops about the situation in this thread do you really think the cops on the scene would stop the arrest? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:56:08 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The ethical rules governing attorney-client relationships and the legal issues regarding privilege are different from the rules governing court appointments for indigent individuals. She can be his attorney without any court appointment. The only potential issue for her would be her employer, the PD's office, but everyone seems to agree that the PD's office would love this. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Originally Posted By brian4wd
Wouldn't it be a conflict of interest for a PD to take a case pro bono? Since I pay her salary don't I have a say in the matter? It feels good saying that I'd agree with you if the court assigned the case to the individual PD after the needs test has been completed. I get the attorney-client relationship thing - I just find it interesting when you throw the PD/paid by taxpayers aspect of it into the mix. As I said earlier, even if you are technically correct it can look incredibly stupid. And I agree with Moto that there is lots of gray area in LE - and it seems like this particular situation is one of them when you start picking apart the details. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 9:01:08 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Given the disagreements between cops/lawyer & cops/cops about the situation in this thread do you really think the cops on the scene would stop the arrest? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The two other cops just stood there and let him "arrest her for resisting arrest". They should of arrested him for false arrest. Or at the very least pulled him aside and stopped him. It's IA's job to deal with bad cops. Given the disagreements between cops/lawyer & cops/cops about the situation in this thread do you really think the cops on the scene would stop the arrest? There are very few things that I would really think the cops on scene would stop the arrest that another officer is doing. Even fewer where the cops on scene would arrest the officer. And just out of curiosity has there been one lawyer yet say that the officers acted appropriately? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 9:01:30 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's IA's job to deal with bad cops. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The two other cops just stood there and let him "arrest her for resisting arrest". They should of arrested him for false arrest. Or at the very least pulled him aside and stopped him. It's IA's job to deal with bad cops.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 9:01:44 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes. Same theory of investigating a crime, even though it is discussion of a prior crime and not a crime about to occur. Both of which are covered under Terry. Now, with the Terry argument in mind, the police have a lawful reason to stop the person. An attorney has no legal authority to remove someone from a lawful government stop. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: I have not researched it, but I don't think you can Terry stop someone days later and at a location distant from the crime and force him to pose for a photo
Quite a common occurrence. I see a robbery video which shows a suspect. I see a guy walking and he looks like the guy from the video. I stop him based upon the resemblance to the video. Too much time has passed for a one on one show up, where the victim picks him out. So, the options are a physical lineup or a photo lineup. I document the person through an FI card and take the photo. He doesn't have to cooperate with the photo and can turn away. That is his choice. Wouldn't that not be a Terry stop then? Yes. Same theory of investigating a crime, even though it is discussion of a prior crime and not a crime about to occur. Both of which are covered under Terry. Now, with the Terry argument in mind, the police have a lawful reason to stop the person. An attorney has no legal authority to remove someone from a lawful government stop. May be the same theory of investigating a crime, but it's a completely different context. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 9:05:39 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
After the fact but during the commission of a crime?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nijNaHkkdnc
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The two other cops just stood there and let him "arrest her for resisting arrest". They should of arrested him for false arrest. Or at the very least pulled him aside and stopped him. It's IA's job to deal with bad cops. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nijNaHkkdnc
I was referring to on duty actions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 9:09:45 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I get the attorney-client relationship thing - I just find it interesting when you throw the PD/paid by taxpayers aspect of it into the mix. As I said earlier, even if you are technically correct it can look incredibly stupid. And I agree with Moto that there is lots of gray area in LE - and it seems like this particular situation is one of them when you start picking apart the details. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 9:15:43 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's a SCOTUS decision Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Pretty sure Supreme Court overturned. You can't fingerprint without an arrest, I believe. It's a SCOTUS decision Did a look into this. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction in Hayes v Florida. The part you quoted said that there is support for the view that the fourth amendment may allow fingerprinting in stops with RS under certain conditions. It did not say that it would be permissible. Held. No, the judgment has to be reversed. “Here, as in [Davis v. Mississippi], there was no probable cause to arrest, no consent to the journey to the police station, and no judicial authorization for such a detention for fingerprinting purposes.” “None of our later cases have undercut the holding in Davis that transportation to and investigative detention at the station house without probable cause or judicial authorization together violate the Fourth Amendment.”
“There is no doubt that at some point in the investigative process, police procedures can qualitatively and quantitatively be so intrusive with respect to a suspect’s freedom of movement and privacy interests as to trigger the full protection of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. And our view continues to be that the line is crossed when the police, without probable cause or a warrant, forcibly remove a person from his home or other place in which he is entitled to be and transport him to the police station, where he is detained, although briefly, for investigative purposes. We adhere to the view that such seizures, at least where not under judicial supervision, are sufficiently like arrests to invoke the traditional rule that arrests may constitutionally be made only on probable cause.” “[Neither] reasonable suspicion nor probable cause would suffice to permit the officers to make a warrantless entry into a person’s house for the purpose of obtaining fingerprint identification.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 9:16:04 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not missing it. I am very familiar with it. Were the other officers there at the beginning of the contact or did they see the commotion in the hallway and come over later? Again, edited video problems. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When judging an officers actions I really don't care about how it "looks". I judge it based upon the applicable law. I do it every day. Did the officer in question have probable cause to believe the PD obstructed his investigation is the only thing I judge it on. Not how it looks, or whether I would have done the same thing. Whether it was within policy and law with no emotion. My personal feeling is that assholes collided and since the officer could arrest her he did. Agreed I have made plenty of arrests that "don't look good" but were perfectly legal.Hell most are I'm very black and white when it comes to interpreting the law. The PD was wrong to stick her nose where it didn't belong and when she challenged the detective to arrest her he took her up on her offer. You're missing that if the suspect reasonably feels that he is being detained then he is being detained. I can have a guy surrounded by cops and tell him he is free to go a million times while cops clearly block his path. It is a detainment no matter how many times I tell him he is free to go. Tons of gray in LE. I'm not missing it. I am very familiar with it. Were the other officers there at the beginning of the contact or did they see the commotion in the hallway and come over later? Again, edited video problems. The other officers came over after other Public Defenders tried to interfere. One PD ran back into the custody hallway and told lawyer of the year that Inspectors were trying to photograph her client in the current case. She then ran out and interfered with the Inspectors. The Inspectors called for backup because the other PDs were creating a disturbance and preventing them from photographing the suspect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 9:19:44 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The same as with anything, consent or with PC. If in public, well there is no expectation of privacy. You do know the difference in PC and RS? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I never said that I could force a suspect to submit to a picture with RS. I said I will take your picture if I need it for my investigation. If you refuse to submit to a identifing photo that I need for my investigation then I will take other measure to require that photo. How would you compel a photo during an investigation? The same as with anything, consent or with PC. If in public, well there is no expectation of privacy. You do know the difference in PC and RS? Very much so. You are right that there is no expectation of privacy in public, but without a warrant I don't see how you could compel somebody to allow you to take their picture. Unless you are going to arrest them for resisting arrest and use the booking photo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 9:21:04 PM EDT
[#38]
This thread is interesting, not just for the cops vs. lawyer pissing match.
What I'm certain of is that the photographee was "detained". It's not a consensual encounter when you're backed against a wall and surrounded by a ring of cops. Any reasonable person would not feel free to leave. I'm not clear on whether that detention was lawful (based on some RS/PC that the photographee had committed a crime) or not. It sure seemed to me that the lawyer was basically doing her job, but police seem to get pissy whenever anyone tells one of their suspects to quit cooperating with the police. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 9:32:46 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Very much so. You are right that there is no expectation of privacy in public, but without a warrant I don't see how you could compel somebody to allow you to take their picture. Unless you are going to arrest them for resisting arrest and use the booking photo. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I never said that I could force a suspect to submit to a picture with RS. I said I will take your picture if I need it for my investigation. If you refuse to submit to a identifing photo that I need for my investigation then I will take other measure to require that photo. How would you compel a photo during an investigation? The same as with anything, consent or with PC. If in public, well there is no expectation of privacy. You do know the difference in PC and RS? Very much so. You are right that there is no expectation of privacy in public, but without a warrant I don't see how you could compel somebody to allow you to take their picture. Unless you are going to arrest them for resisting arrest and use the booking photo. What do I need for an arrest? What do I need for a warrant? clue |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 9:43:43 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You really don't get it do you. I'll try one more time. I'm going to type this a slowly as possible for you. -The comment was made that someone takes his job (LE) as all black and white. -I stated LE is full of gray. -You then qouted my "gray" comment ( snipped out the rest) and made a statement about there being no "grey" when it comes to violating individual rights. -I then answered you back with yeah because that's what I was talking about.
-Other poster jumped on your little BS bandwagon with a comment saying "technically" I did say that state interest trumped individual rights. -Then I told him yall were twisting my post. That the gray in LE is reasonableness, it's far from black and white. -You get all pissy and told me to go fuck myself. So show me where I said anything or inferred about violating anyone's rights. So try to comprehend this, my opinion is that an individual's Constitutional Rights trumps all. All would mean state and federal...get it, ALL. So what was your opinion now? ETS Disregard, I posted before I read your post about misunderstanding. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who besides you said anything about states rights versus constitutional rights?All I said was there should be zero grey when it comes to cops violating a citizens rights.....and 87 lawyers/prosecuters on here agree it seems... so no, I am not making up anything, you are..and in the mean time..you can go fuck yourself and your own BS...
The smiley faces don't absolve you from the 'go fuck yourself" comment So? my opinion is mine..just as his is his.... You really don't get it do you. I'll try one more time. I'm going to type this a slowly as possible for you. -The comment was made that someone takes his job (LE) as all black and white. -I stated LE is full of gray. -You then qouted my "gray" comment ( snipped out the rest) and made a statement about there being no "grey" when it comes to violating individual rights. -I then answered you back with yeah because that's what I was talking about.
-Other poster jumped on your little BS bandwagon with a comment saying "technically" I did say that state interest trumped individual rights. -Then I told him yall were twisting my post. That the gray in LE is reasonableness, it's far from black and white. -You get all pissy and told me to go fuck myself. So show me where I said anything or inferred about violating anyone's rights. So try to comprehend this, my opinion is that an individual's Constitutional Rights trumps all. All would mean state and federal...get it, ALL. So what was your opinion now? ETS Disregard, I posted before I read your post about misunderstanding. I would like to point out that the 'you' in my technically post was meant in a more generic sense. And if I may expand on my thoughts a little, things like a Terry stop are an infringement on our rights. The courts have just held that the infringement is minor and is outweighed by the state's compelling interest. I make no judgement and I am really enjoying the discussion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 9:45:12 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did a look into this. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction in Hayes v Florida. The part you quoted said that there is support for the view that the fourth amendment may allow fingerprinting in stops with RS under certain conditions. It did not say that it would be permissible. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pretty sure Supreme Court overturned. You can't fingerprint without an arrest, I believe. It's a SCOTUS decision Did a look into this. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction in Hayes v Florida. The part you quoted said that there is support for the view that the fourth amendment may allow fingerprinting in stops with RS under certain conditions. It did not say that it would be permissible. Held. No, the judgment has to be reversed. “Here, as in [Davis v. Mississippi], there was no probable cause to arrest, no consent to the journey to the police station, and no judicial authorization for such a detention for fingerprinting purposes.” “None of our later cases have undercut the holding in Davis that transportation to and investigative detention at the station house without probable cause or judicial authorization together violate the Fourth Amendment.”
“There is no doubt that at some point in the investigative process, police procedures can qualitatively and quantitatively be so intrusive with respect to a suspect’s freedom of movement and privacy interests as to trigger the full protection of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. And our view continues to be that the line is crossed when the police, without probable cause or a warrant, forcibly remove a person from his home or other place in which he is entitled to be and transport him to the police station, where he is detained, although briefly, for investigative purposes. We adhere to the view that such seizures, at least where not under judicial supervision, are sufficiently like arrests to invoke the traditional rule that arrests may constitutionally be made only on probable cause.” “[Neither] reasonable suspicion nor probable cause would suffice to permit the officers to make a warrantless entry into a person’s house for the purpose of obtaining fingerprint identification.” Read the whole decision. They state that fingerprinting in the field during a terry stop would not be impermissible. What they overturned was taking the suspect to HQ for fingerprinting. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 9:49:54 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would like to point out that the 'you' in my technically post was meant in a more generic sense. And if I may expand on my thoughts a little, things like a Terry stop are an infringement on our rights. The courts have just held that the infringement is minor and is outweighed by the state's compelling interest. I make no judgement and I am really enjoying the discussion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who besides you said anything about states rights versus constitutional rights?All I said was there should be zero grey when it comes to cops violating a citizens rights.....and 87 lawyers/prosecuters on here agree it seems... so no, I am not making up anything, you are..and in the mean time..you can go fuck yourself and your own BS...
The smiley faces don't absolve you from the 'go fuck yourself" comment So? my opinion is mine..just as his is his.... You really don't get it do you. I'll try one more time. I'm going to type this a slowly as possible for you. -The comment was made that someone takes his job (LE) as all black and white. -I stated LE is full of gray. -You then qouted my "gray" comment ( snipped out the rest) and made a statement about there being no "grey" when it comes to violating individual rights. -I then answered you back with yeah because that's what I was talking about.
-Other poster jumped on your little BS bandwagon with a comment saying "technically" I did say that state interest trumped individual rights. -Then I told him yall were twisting my post. That the gray in LE is reasonableness, it's far from black and white. -You get all pissy and told me to go fuck myself. So show me where I said anything or inferred about violating anyone's rights. So try to comprehend this, my opinion is that an individual's Constitutional Rights trumps all. All would mean state and federal...get it, ALL. So what was your opinion now? ETS Disregard, I posted before I read your post about misunderstanding. I would like to point out that the 'you' in my technically post was meant in a more generic sense. And if I may expand on my thoughts a little, things like a Terry stop are an infringement on our rights. The courts have just held that the infringement is minor and is outweighed by the state's compelling interest. I make no judgement and I am really enjoying the discussion. Quick question. If a cops sees a guy dressed in all black sneaking around in your back yard or businesswhen it is clear that no one is home/work. You think that the cop doing a Tery stop on this guy is an infringement on his rights? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 9:52:11 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What do I need for an arrest? What do I need for a warrant? clue Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I never said that I could force a suspect to submit to a picture with RS. I said I will take your picture if I need it for my investigation. If you refuse to submit to a identifing photo that I need for my investigation then I will take other measure to require that photo. How would you compel a photo during an investigation? The same as with anything, consent or with PC. If in public, well there is no expectation of privacy. You do know the difference in PC and RS? Very much so. You are right that there is no expectation of privacy in public, but without a warrant I don't see how you could compel somebody to allow you to take their picture. Unless you are going to arrest them for resisting arrest and use the booking photo. What do I need for an arrest? What do I need for a warrant? clue Understand that you need PC for both, I guess in my mind that would be hard to reach when you are still so early in the investigation that you need a photo of the suspect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 9:54:27 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quick question. If a cops sees a guy dressed in all black sneaking around in your back yard or businesswhen it is clear that no one is home/work. You think that the cop doing a Tery stop on this guy is an infringement on his rights? Yes. However the state's compelling need outweighs the individual's right to not have their activities delayed and I expect that a court would allow it. And I would support that allowance. Not all infringements are illegal. After all, criminals cannot have guns in jail. Right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 9:58:26 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This thread is interesting, not just for the cops vs. lawyer pissing match. What I'm certain of is that the photographee was "detained". It's not a consensual encounter when you're backed against a wall and surrounded by a ring of cops. Any reasonable person would not feel free to leave. I'm not clear on whether that detention was lawful (based on some RS/PC that the photographee had committed a crime) or not. It sure seemed to me that the lawyer was basically doing her job, but police seem to get pissy whenever anyone tells one of their suspects to quit cooperating with the police. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 10:07:51 PM EDT
[#46]
This is the dumbest shit I have ever seen a cop do. Yeah the DA and the Public Defenders are on opposite sides. They are still both lawyers. I can see the DA throwing anything gathered by these cops on these guys out.
Judges are lawyers also. This won't work in these cops favor either. They most likely poisoned the entire investigation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 10:16:57 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Understand that you need PC for both, I guess in my mind that would be hard to reach when you are still so early in the investigation that you need a photo of the suspect. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The same as with anything, consent or with PC. If in public, well there is no expectation of privacy. You do know the difference in PC and RS? Very much so. You are right that there is no expectation of privacy in public, but without a warrant I don't see how you could compel somebody to allow you to take their picture. Unless you are going to arrest them for resisting arrest and use the booking photo. What do I need for an arrest? What do I need for a warrant? clue Understand that you need PC for both, I guess in my mind that would be hard to reach when you are still so early in the investigation that you need a photo of the suspect. As been stated multiple times photos of some new identifiable characteristic, scars, tattoos, hair, injuries etc. These might be what you need for positive Id of a suspect of a previous crime. Which along with other evidence could be PC for a warrant, or a line up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 10:19:57 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As been stated multiple times photos of some new identifiable characteristic, scars, tattoos, hair, injuries etc. These might be what you need for positive Id of a suspect of a previous crime. Which along with other evidence could be PC for a warrant, or a line up. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The same as with anything, consent or with PC. If in public, well there is no expectation of privacy. You do know the difference in PC and RS? Very much so. You are right that there is no expectation of privacy in public, but without a warrant I don't see how you could compel somebody to allow you to take their picture. Unless you are going to arrest them for resisting arrest and use the booking photo. What do I need for an arrest? What do I need for a warrant? clue Understand that you need PC for both, I guess in my mind that would be hard to reach when you are still so early in the investigation that you need a photo of the suspect. As been stated multiple times photos of some new identifiable characteristic, scars, tattoos, hair, injuries etc. These might be what you need for positive Id of a suspect of a previous crime. Which along with other evidence could be PC for a warrant, or a line up. So how would you compel the photos that you need in order to get PC to get a warrant? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 10:21:52 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes. However the state's compelling need outweighs the individual's right to not have their activities delayed and I expect that a court would allow it. And I would support that allowance. Not all infringements are illegal. After all, criminals cannot have guns in jail. Right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quick question. If a cops sees a guy dressed in all black sneaking around in your back yard or businesswhen it is clear that no one is home/work. You think that the cop doing a Tery stop on this guy is an infringement on his rights? Yes. However the state's compelling need outweighs the individual's right to not have their activities delayed and I expect that a court would allow it. And I would support that allowance. Not all infringements are illegal. After all, criminals cannot have guns in jail. Right? Agreed. And I also agree that our rights as Americans a slipping away and I will with haste toss the badge before I let my Country go. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 10:25:15 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agreed. And I also agree that our rights as Americans a slipping away and I will with haste toss the badge before I let my Country go. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quick question. If a cops sees a guy dressed in all black sneaking around in your back yard or businesswhen it is clear that no one is home/work. You think that the cop doing a Tery stop on this guy is an infringement on his rights? Yes. However the state's compelling need outweighs the individual's right to not have their activities delayed and I expect that a court would allow it. And I would support that allowance. Not all infringements are illegal. After all, criminals cannot have guns in jail. Right? Agreed. And I also agree that our rights as Americans a slipping away and I will with haste toss the badge before I let my Country go. Can I join your beer summit? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
