User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 5:43:52 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cops do a lot of dumb shit all the time because no one calls them on it. This. They get used to playing sloppy and keep playing sloppy even when it's a bad idea. You can do the bully routine with a dude on the street claiming all sorts of authority...but in the fucking courthouse with his PD literally right there objecting? That's just retarded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 5:44:45 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. I have made plenty of arrests that "don't look good" but were perfectly legal. 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. With all do respect, you don't have a law degree and you don't have any concept of the ethical obligations of attorneys. The attorney was not acting stupidly, she was very deliberate in representing her client to the best of her abilities. One of the most important parts of lawyering is preserving your objections. By forcing the police to use force over her objection, she was preserving that objection for the record. No judge in the world is going to believe that the search was voluntary after the lawyer is hauled off in handcuffs. Therefore the police have to justify the search via warrant or exigent circumstances. If she did step aside as you advise, then she risks the Court believing that she consented to the search, and consent searches are generally admissible regardless of defect. As an attorney she is obligated to provide a zealous defense, and any attorney worth their salt would do what she did in that situation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 5:45:20 PM EDT
[#3]
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. Relax man, it was pretty obvious that he was detained. The investigating officer told her, as soon as I take his picture he is free to go. He was being detained for an investigative ID. My comment was referring to how you were coming off as if the cop was correct and the lawyer was incorrect (your black and white outlook). Thats how your post came off. You have since said both were idiots and that was my point. It should have been handled differently, both were idiots and there was zero reason for it to turn into cuffing the attorney. If it was a legal detainment then detain him until your finished with him and release him. If he wants to see his lawyer before any questioning then he gets his lawyer. If his lawyer invokes his rights for him and he does not speak then it is clear the questions are over. Make any ID you need and either release or charge. Yes the video was cut for some reason, wonder why? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 5:45:33 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With all do respect, you don't have a law degree and you don't have any concept of the ethical obligations of attorneys. The attorney was not acting stupidly, she was very deliberate in representing her client to the best of her abilities. One of the most important parts of lawyering is preserving your objections. By forcing the police to use force over her objection, she was preserving that objection for the record. No judge in the world is going to believe that the search was voluntary after the lawyer is hauled off in handcuffs. Therefore the police have to justify the search via warrant or exigent circumstances. If she did step aside as you advise, then she risks the Court believing that she consented to the search, and consent searches are generally admissible regardless of defect. As an attorney she is obligated to provide a zealous defense, and any attorney worth their salt would do what she did in that situation. That woman is a fantastic motherfucking attorney. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 5:45:54 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Meanwhile, at the Hall of Justice.... http://www.cartoonscrapbook.com/01pics-L/super-friends-73_L09.jpg Ok that was damn funny. But really, the P Defender was under arrest for resisting arrest? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 5:47:22 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Basic agency law. Her "no" is his "no." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I never said differently. No where did we see the suspect/client refuse anything. We saw the lawyer butt in and refuse to talk to the investigating officer. The suspect/client has the right to still talk to police and to submit to the photo or walk away if he is not being detained. If he is being detained he has rights under Miranda, if he is being charged he has rights to counsel. I wonder why the video was cut short? If he was being detained then he can be transported to interrogation and his lawyer can follow if she please.  Did I ever say differently?
If he is being legally detained then her no means nothing other than no questions without representation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 5:50:20 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah but most of those cases revolve around reasonable suspicion that they have RECENTLY committed a crime NEARBY, not that you think they committed a burglary last week two counties away. I've just never seen anyone try to claim a Terry stop to photograph someone over a crime distant in time and place. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You can walk up to anyone and ask them for their picture, you are claiming you can Terry stop anyone at any time and any location and force them to provide a photo if you think they are a suspect in some crime that happened somewhere, even when you have no articuable suspicion that they are currently or have recently committed a crime in that area. No, only if you have RS that they may have committed a crime. You just can't detain anybody for no reason. I don't know the specific facts of the SFPD incident, but these things do happen. For example, I am investigating a robbery, the victim doesn't know the suspect but believes they will recognize the suspect if seen again. I develop "A" as a possible suspect. "A" has no recent photos available to me (booking photos, drivers license, facebook, etc). If I see "A" walking down the street a week later, I can detain him for the crime of the robbery and continue my investigation. I can take his photograph. Happens all the time. Of course, I have to have reasons like in the scenario above to do this. I can't detain any random penguin off the street and take their photograph. But you and I both know that's not what happened in the SFPD incident. Edit- and as a fun poin of trivia, if I arrest "A" I can later compel him to participate in a physical lineup (like in the movies!) for the victim to ID him. His lawyer can watch with me to make sure its "fair" but cannot stop it from happening, as your physical appearance is not considered incriminating in itself and is not a 5th amendment issue. Doing these lineups with defense counsel is a lot of fun 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 5:52:00 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah but most of those cases revolve around reasonable suspicion that they have RECENTLY committed a crime NEARBY, not that you think they committed a burglary last week two counties away. I've just never seen anyone try to claim a Terry stop to photograph someone over a crime distant in time and place. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You can walk up to anyone and ask them for their picture, you are claiming you can Terry stop anyone at any time and any location and force them to provide a photo if you think they are a suspect in some crime that happened somewhere, even when you have no articuable suspicion that they are currently or have recently committed a crime in that area. No, only if you have RS that they may have committed a crime. You just can't detain anybody for no reason. I've done it as most likely all cops have. We have hot sheets just looking for people. I have FI'd a suspect and weeks later the arrest was made. My FI along with other (unknown at that time) info was PC for an arrest warrant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 5:52:16 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Still not seeing photograph. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 5:53:05 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There should be zero grey when it comes to police and violating citizens rights.. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Tons of gray in LE. There should be zero grey when it comes to police and violating citizens rights..
Yeah because thats what I was talking about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 5:55:01 PM EDT
[#11]
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). Not until a court says so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 5:55:44 PM EDT
[#12]
Thread's interesting and all, but I'm still sitting here going, "Meanwhile..."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 5:57:30 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah because thats what I was talking about. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Tons of gray in LE. There should be zero grey when it comes to police and violating citizens rights..
Yeah because thats what I was talking about. Technically you are. The ever present question is if the state's interest outweighs the individual's right to X. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 6:00:12 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Technically you are. The ever present question is if the state's interest outweighs the individual's right to X. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Tons of gray in LE. There should be zero grey when it comes to police and violating citizens rights..
Yeah because thats what I was talking about. Technically you are. The ever present question is if the state's interest outweighs the individual's right to X. And this has been well hashed out in the courts. Smile for the camera 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 6:06:29 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And this has been well hashed out in the courts. Smile for the camera An interesting link for your reading pleasure that shows the risk of demanding a photograph without probable cause: Link |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 6:09:32 PM EDT
[#16]
PINAC
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 6:12:04 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Terry gives cops the ability to stop and frisk based on reasonable suspicion. Stop-and-id laws give cops the ability to stop and ask for id based on reasonable suspicion. Give me a cite - one cite - for the ability to stop and take a picture. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why do you say it is an unlawful detention? The officer was talking to the suspect before the lawyer arrived. Yeah, sure. She saw her client surrounded by cops. I'm sure it was designed to look to the suspect like a friendly encounter and that he could leave at any time. By the way, she is her client's agent and has the power to revoke any consent that might otherwise have been expressed. She was thus legally privileged to interfere in any supposedly "consensual" encounter. If the client did not like it, he could fire her. So again how do we know this is an illegal detainment? And yes, the cops were talking to him and she was told about it and she left court to come see what was up. Terry gives cops the ability to stop and frisk based on reasonable suspicion. Stop-and-id laws give cops the ability to stop and ask for id based on reasonable suspicion. Give me a cite - one cite - for the ability to stop and take a picture. 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. Being IDed is not self incriminating . |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 6:15:08 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Being IDed is not self incriminating . |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 6:15:51 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 6:19:05 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Indeed. Don't fight it on the side of the road, wait until court. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I can see the cops point of view. She was not representing the "client" in the matter they were investigating and it was not a custodial interview. Yet it seems like a very stupid thing for the cops to do. Indeed. Don't fight it on the side of the road, wait until court. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile But you'll need the bumps and bruises to prove you were violated. Otherwise, it is just their word against yours.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 6:21:02 PM EDT
[#21]
Am I being detained? Am I free to go?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 6:21:05 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Technically you are. The ever present question is if the state's interest outweighs the individual's right to X. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Tons of gray in LE. There should be zero grey when it comes to police and violating citizens rights..
Yeah because thats what I was talking about. Technically you are. The ever present question is if the state's interest outweighs the individual's right to X. I said nothing to insinuate that the states rights outweighs the individuals Constitutional Rights. My comment was to Justice's black and white comment. The gray in LE is called reasonable. You and AK can't try and twist it any way you want but your just making up BS. So technically you're full of shit. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 6:24:19 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Being IDed is not self incriminating . anddddddddddd you think that means what? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 6:25:33 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wouldn't that not be a Terry stop then? Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 6:27:42 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How would you compel a photo during an investigation? Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 6:34:12 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I said nothing to insinuate that the states rights outweighs the individuals Constitutional Rights. My comment was to Justice's black and white comment. The gray in LE is called reasonable. You and AK can't try and twist it any way you want but your just making up BS. So technically you're full of shit. 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..
Yeah because thats what I was talking about. Technically you are. The ever present question is if the state's interest outweighs the individual's right to X. I said nothing to insinuate that the states rights outweighs the individuals Constitutional Rights. My comment was to Justice's black and white comment. The gray in LE is called reasonable. You and AK can't try and twist it any way you want but your just making up BS. So technically you're full of shit. 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... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 6:34:15 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
An interesting link for your reading pleasure that shows the risk of demanding a photograph without probable cause: Link Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And this has been well hashed out in the courts. Smile for the camera An interesting link for your reading pleasure that shows the risk of demanding a photograph without probable cause: Link All of my argument and examples specify that reasonable suspicion (what is required to detain someone) is at least present. And your link backs up everything I've been saying. So... thanks? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 6:35:02 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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). Have you ever heard of the concept of language in an opinion being dicta? Welcome to a textbook example. Also, I think you are ignoring a number of other factors. Since he was already a obviously criminal defendant, they obviously had his booking photo. Identification of the suspect would have thus been adequate. It was thus unreasonable to detain him further to seize evidence they already had. Further, the "stink factor" of this case is unbelievable. I find it hard to believe that a man who was obviously a detective and several patrol officers just "happened" upon this guy. What was obviously transpiring was an effort to "sweat" this guy into talking. I think they knew exactly who he was and also that he had a court date at that place and time. They then got mad at the lawyer for doing her job and arrested her. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 6:36:50 PM EDT
[#29]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 6:38:35 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All of my argument and examples specify that reasonable suspicion (what is required to detain someone) is at least present. And your link backs up everything I've been saying. So... thanks? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And this has been well hashed out in the courts. Smile for the camera An interesting link for your reading pleasure that shows the risk of demanding a photograph without probable cause: Link All of my argument and examples specify that reasonable suspicion (what is required to detain someone) is at least present. And your link backs up everything I've been saying. So... thanks? The cops in that case had ample reasonable suspicion (reports of a fight and of a gun being involved). They did not have PC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 6:44:56 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who besides you said anything about states rights versus constitutional rights? HUH 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... and so do I but my gray comment was not about violating rights now was it. I get it reading comprehension isn't your thing, that's ok midgets aren't my thing, I probably dislike them as much as you dislike comprehension.
so no, I am not making up anything, you are..and in the mean time..you can go fuck yourself and your own BS...
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There should be zero grey when it comes to police and violating citizens rights..
Yeah because thats what I was talking about. Technically you are. The ever present question is if the state's interest outweighs the individual's right to X. I said nothing to insinuate that the states rights outweighs the individuals Constitutional Rights. My comment was to Justice's black and white comment. The gray in LE is called reasonable. You and AK can't try and twist it any way you want but your just making up BS. So technically you're full of shit. Who besides you said anything about states rights versus constitutional rights? HUH 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... and so do I but my gray comment was not about violating rights now was it. I get it reading comprehension isn't your thing, that's ok midgets aren't my thing, I probably dislike them as much as you dislike comprehension.
so no, I am not making up anything, you are..and in the mean time..you can go fuck yourself and your own BS...
Well okay man. You sure as hell showed me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 6:46:31 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The lawyer was not acting stupidly. She was doing her best to represent her client. By forcing the police to arrest her she demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the police were not doing anything voluntary or by consent but by naked force, which will assist her in defending her client later on down the road. There is now zero question that this was a detention and zero question that her client did not consent to the pictures. The proper procedure for wanting a picture of someone represented by counsel is to contact their counsel and arrange for a time for pictures to be taken. There is no legitimate reason not to do this. The proper procedure allows any party who objects to the pictures to bring the issue before the Court and have things decided by law, not by "Respect Mah Authoriti!" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't see why it is so complicated. Both the cop and the PD made the mistakes. You, happycynic come off as if only the cop was "halfwitted" and justice comes off as if only the cop was right. This whole deal was handle like a bunch of freakin idiots. The PD not wanting or careing that the cop offered to explain what was going on. The cop for not ignoring her, taking his pictures and telling them to have a nice day. They both look stupid. Has she been assigned this case/client for the new charges? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 6:48:20 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have you ever heard of the concept of language in an opinion being dicta? Welcome to a textbook example. Also, I think you are ignoring a number of other factors. Since he was already a obviously criminal defendant, they obviously had his booking photo. Identification of the suspect would have thus been adequate. It was thus unreasonable to detain him further to seize evidence they already had. Further, the "stink factor" of this case is unbelievable. I find it hard to believe that a man who was obviously a detective and several patrol officers just "happened" upon this guy. What was obviously transpiring was an effort to "sweat" this guy into talking. I think they knew exactly who he was and also that he had a court date at that place and time. They then got mad at the lawyer for doing her job and arrested her. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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). Have you ever heard of the concept of language in an opinion being dicta? Welcome to a textbook example. Also, I think you are ignoring a number of other factors. Since he was already a obviously criminal defendant, they obviously had his booking photo. Identification of the suspect would have thus been adequate. It was thus unreasonable to detain him further to seize evidence they already had. Further, the "stink factor" of this case is unbelievable. I find it hard to believe that a man who was obviously a detective and several patrol officers just "happened" upon this guy. What was obviously transpiring was an effort to "sweat" this guy into talking. I think they knew exactly who he was and also that he had a court date at that place and time. They then got mad at the lawyer for doing her job and arrested her. A. you assume they knew who he was. Perhaps the detective recognized him as he walked down the hall. You know how crowded those halls get with hundreds of defendants, victims, and family members B. I also thought they were there specifically for him until I re-read the article and read this.... She was released because Stansbury, who was in court for a separate case when he spotted her client and his co-defendant, was subpoenaed to take the stand and had to leave, said Officer Albie Esparza, a police spokesman. He was there on separate business. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 6:49:30 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have you ever heard of the concept of language in an opinion being dicta? Welcome to a textbook example. Also, I think you are ignoring a number of other factors. Since he was already a obviously criminal defendant, they obviously had his booking photo. Identification of the suspect would have thus been adequate. It was thus unreasonable to detain him further to seize evidence they already had. Further, the "stink factor" of this case is unbelievable. I find it hard to believe that a man who was obviously a detective and several patrol officers just "happened" upon this guy. What was obviously transpiring was an effort to "sweat" this guy into talking. I think they knew exactly who he was and also that he had a court date at that place and time. They then got mad at the lawyer for doing her job and arrested her. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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). Have you ever heard of the concept of language in an opinion being dicta? Welcome to a textbook example. Also, I think you are ignoring a number of other factors. Since he was already a obviously criminal defendant, they obviously had his booking photo. Identification of the suspect would have thus been adequate. It was thus unreasonable to detain him further to seize evidence they already had. Further, the "stink factor" of this case is unbelievable. I find it hard to believe that a man who was obviously a detective and several patrol officers just "happened" upon this guy. What was obviously transpiring was an effort to "sweat" this guy into talking. I think they knew exactly who he was and also that he had a court date at that place and time. They then got mad at the lawyer for doing her job and arrested her. I dont disagree that they probably knew who he was. I'm guessing there were other reasons they needed a photo. He might have a new distinguishing trait, scar, tats, hair, missing tooth etc that was needed for a positive ID for the crime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 6:50:39 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Terry is generally justified on the grounds of safety, and the Courts do permit identification of an individual. Neither rational is likely to apply when someone is in the secured area of a Courthouse and is walking out of a Court proceeding where they have been called and identified already. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. Lulz You get that the stop and a possible frisk due to safety concerns are two different parts of Terry right? The ruling addressed the initial seizure and the subsequent pat down. A Terry stop is just an investigative detention. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 6:50:43 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It doesn't matter whether she is appointed or not. As an attorney all it takes is an agreement between myself and the client to form the relationship. If the Court later choses to appoint someone else that is irrelevant at the time. And it is not for the cops to question the attorney-client relationship. The procedure to challenge said relationship is to file a motion to disqualify with the Court and let the judge decide. The lawyer said there was a relationship and the individual did not dispute that, ergo the police must assume that an attorney-client relationship exists until proven otherwise or the relationship is dissolved by the Court. Because the attorney, as agent for the suspect, declined the picture and the cops took it anyway, it was a non-voluntary act which must be justified by the police as lawful, rather than admitted due to consent. When the taxpayer is paying for the attorney (read PD paid for by public funds) the part in red seems wrong - the taxpayers are the client, no? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 6:53:02 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
She could also agree to be his lawyer on the spot. Regardless of whom she works for the law allows for pro bono representation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Even if it did not directly pertain to the crime she was retained for, she certainly had standing as his lawyer to object. 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
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 6:56:01 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People Cops do a lot of dumb shit all the time because no one calls them on it. FIFY |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 6:56:33 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A. you assume they knew who he was. Perhaps the detective recognized him as he walked down the hall. You know how crowded those halls get with hundreds of defendants, victims, and family members B. I also thought they were there specifically for him until I re-read the article and read this.... He was there on separate business. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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). Have you ever heard of the concept of language in an opinion being dicta? Welcome to a textbook example. Also, I think you are ignoring a number of other factors. Since he was already a obviously criminal defendant, they obviously had his booking photo. Identification of the suspect would have thus been adequate. It was thus unreasonable to detain him further to seize evidence they already had. Further, the "stink factor" of this case is unbelievable. I find it hard to believe that a man who was obviously a detective and several patrol officers just "happened" upon this guy. What was obviously transpiring was an effort to "sweat" this guy into talking. I think they knew exactly who he was and also that he had a court date at that place and time. They then got mad at the lawyer for doing her job and arrested her. A. you assume they knew who he was. Perhaps the detective recognized him as he walked down the hall. You know how crowded those halls get with hundreds of defendants, victims, and family members B. I also thought they were there specifically for him until I re-read the article and read this.... She was released because Stansbury, who was in court for a separate case when he spotted her client and his co-defendant, was subpoenaed to take the stand and had to leave, said Officer Albie Esparza, a police spokesman. He was there on separate business. Well, I missed that too. It sure would be interesting to see all the video. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 6:57:04 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There should be zero grey when it comes to police and violating citizens rights.. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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"................. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 6:57:24 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Even if it did not directly pertain to the crime she was retained for, she certainly had standing as his lawyer to object. 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 Get back to work. Those of us who actually work for a living aren't paying you to be on the Internet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 7:00:21 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Terry is generally justified on the grounds of safety and the Courts do permit identification of an individual. Neither rational is likely to apply when someone is in the secured area of a Courthouse and is walking out of a Court proceeding where they have been called and identified already. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. No, Terry is justified under RS that a crime has been or about to be committed.. Terry allows for safety pat for weapons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 7:01:37 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 7:02:54 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Terry is generally justified on the grounds of safety, and the Courts do permit identification of an individual. Neither rational is likely to apply when someone is in the secured area of a Courthouse and is walking out of a Court proceeding where they have been called and identified already. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. You have not been to court much, have you? The place is a circus. A person's presence in a court house does not mean anyone knows who they are. It is not uncommon for friends, family, and parties to a court case to show up on the wrong or right date. So, there may be people there that are not on any docket and no one knows who they are. I have also seen a suspect come in and assume the cousin's role in court. He acted as if he was someone else because his cousin refused to come to court. He thought he could show up and make the plea deal for him. It didn't go down as he expected
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 7:17:31 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Care to give a singular definition for "unreasonable"................. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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"................. I already asked him once and he said ugly things to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 7:32:11 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The cops in that case had ample reasonable suspicion (reports of a fight and of a gun being involved). They did not have PC. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And this has been well hashed out in the courts. Smile for the camera An interesting link for your reading pleasure that shows the risk of demanding a photograph without probable cause: Link All of my argument and examples specify that reasonable suspicion (what is required to detain someone) is at least present. And your link backs up everything I've been saying. So... thanks? The cops in that case had ample reasonable suspicion (reports of a fight and of a gun being involved). They did not have PC. NO, the article states they tried to take everybody's photo after already determining that no crime had occurred and the investigation was concluded. Go re-read your own link, counselor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 7:40:30 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Care to give a singular definition for "unreasonable"................. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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........ |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 7:43:40 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The smiley faces don't absolve you from the 'go fuck yourself" comment Quote HistoryQuoted:
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.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 7:47:58 PM EDT
[#49]
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........ 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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 7:50:02 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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 |
|
|
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.
