Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 8/11/2014 10:43:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/11/2014 10:43:25 AM EDT by Smashy]

http://azdailysun.com/news/local/state-and-regional/high-court-police-need-reasonable-suspicion-to-frisk-for-guns/article_e4b658f8-1ebe-11e4-b5fe-001a4bcf887a.html


Police cannot frisk someone they stop and question absent some “reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot,” the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
View Quote


This posted yet? I looked around and didn't find anything.


Link Posted: 8/11/2014 10:46:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/11/2014 10:48:01 AM EDT by Paul]
Link Posted: 8/11/2014 10:49:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/11/2014 10:49:23 AM EDT by KILLERB6]
Wasn't/isn't this always the case? Probable cause and all that?

Oh, and in before the LEO bashers...I think.
Link Posted: 8/11/2014 10:50:51 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Paul:
So how does this sit with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)?
View Quote


It pretty much says the same thing as Terry.
Link Posted: 8/11/2014 10:53:13 AM EDT
Yes, this isn't news at all, except that the police were trying to get around the holding in Terry.
Link Posted: 8/11/2014 10:58:43 AM EDT
Without reading the decision, sounds like it does nothing but reaffirm Terry.
Link Posted: 8/11/2014 11:00:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/11/2014 11:01:37 AM EDT by LuckyDucky]
looks like it's more about interfering with open carriers
Link Posted: 8/11/2014 11:04:41 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By LuckyDucky:
looks like it's more about interfering with open carriers
View Quote


If they're carrying openly what do you need to frisk them for?
Link Posted: 8/11/2014 11:06:41 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Top_Secret:


If they're carrying openly what do you need to frisk them for?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Top_Secret:
Originally Posted By LuckyDucky:
looks like it's more about interfering with open carriers


If they're carrying openly what do you need to frisk them for?


To get frisky?



Link Posted: 8/11/2014 11:09:35 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By StevenH:


It pretty much says the same thing as Terry.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By StevenH:
Originally Posted By Paul:
So how does this sit with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)?


It pretty much says the same thing as Terry.


Yup.
Link Posted: 8/11/2014 11:12:00 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ziegenbock:
Yes, this isn't news at all, except that the police were trying to get around the holding in Terry.
View Quote

Not exactly. Terry was a case of a reasonable suspicion stop which then led to a frisk also based on RS. This case is about a consensual contact with no reasonable suspicion of a crime which then led to a frisk based on RS that the person was armed. The prosecution in this case merely argued the existing precedent in the 9th Circuit - US v. Orman. That court concluded that only the reasonable suspicion that the person was armed was sufficient to allow a frisk. That case was also originally from Arizona.
Link Posted: 8/11/2014 11:20:34 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/11/2014 11:24:00 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Paul:
So how does this sit with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)?

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Paul:
So how does this sit with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)?

"In Terry this Court recognized that a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest. The Fourth Amendment does not require a policeman who lacks the precise level of information necessary for probable cause to arrest to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur or a criminal to escape. On the contrary, Terry v Ohio recognizes that it may be the essence of good police work to adopt an intermediate response. 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.

"The Court recognized in Terry v Ohio that the policeman making a reasonable investigatory stop should not be denied the opportunity to protect himself from attack by a hostile suspect. When an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others, he may conduct a limited protective search for concealed weapons. The purpose of this limited search is not to discover evidence of crime, but to allow the officer to pursue his investigation without fear of violence, and thus the frisk for weapons might be equally necessary and reasonable, whether or not carrying a concealed weapon violated any applicable state law. So long as the officer is entitled to make a forcible stop, and has reason to believe that the suspect is armed and dangerous, he may conduct a weapons search limited in scope to this protective purpose."

terry says the same thing.
Link Posted: 8/11/2014 11:26:45 AM EDT
Good.
Link Posted: 8/11/2014 11:27:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/11/2014 11:29:04 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/11/2014 11:32:35 AM EDT
After reading the decision, my take is that simply carrying a weapon does not satisfy the "dangerous" requirement for a Terry search. If the guy had ran away or if the cops had any evidence of criminal activity, the search would have been legal.
Link Posted: 8/11/2014 11:33:29 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/11/2014 11:37:09 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/11/2014 12:18:44 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Top_Secret:


If they're carrying openly what do you need to frisk them for?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Top_Secret:
Originally Posted By LuckyDucky:
looks like it's more about interfering with open carriers


If they're carrying openly what do you need to frisk them for?


Their backup.
Link Posted: 8/11/2014 12:54:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/11/2014 1:02:29 PM EDT by SamuelAdams1776]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
But while speaking with him, one observed a bulge in Serna’s waistband and asked him he if had a gun. When Serna replied in the affirmative, the officer ordered Serna to put his hands on his head and took the weapon.

Serna was arrested after follow-up questions showed he had a felony conviction, meaning he could not legally carry a firearm.


Similar case out of North Carolina ruled the same.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
But while speaking with him, one observed a bulge in Serna’s waistband and asked him he if had a gun. When Serna replied in the affirmative, the officer ordered Serna to put his hands on his head and took the weapon.

Serna was arrested after follow-up questions showed he had a felony conviction, meaning he could not legally carry a firearm.


Similar case out of North Carolina ruled the same.

What was the crime suspected? Since CCW or open carry are not crimes what was the crime suspected for a terry stop?

investigating possibly criminal
Link Posted: 8/11/2014 1:06:56 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Shenanigunz:

Not exactly. Terry was a case of a reasonable suspicion stop which then led to a frisk also based on RS. This case is about a consensual contact with no reasonable suspicion of a crime which then led to a frisk based on RS that the person was armed. The prosecution in this case merely argued the existing precedent in the 9th Circuit - US v. Orman. That court concluded that only the reasonable suspicion that the person was armed was sufficient to allow a frisk. That case was also originally from Arizona.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Shenanigunz:
Originally Posted By ziegenbock:
Yes, this isn't news at all, except that the police were trying to get around the holding in Terry.

Not exactly. Terry was a case of a reasonable suspicion stop which then led to a frisk also based on RS. This case is about a consensual contact with no reasonable suspicion of a crime which then led to a frisk based on RS that the person was armed. The prosecution in this case merely argued the existing precedent in the 9th Circuit - US v. Orman. That court concluded that only the reasonable suspicion that the person was armed was sufficient to allow a frisk. That case was also originally from Arizona.

This seems to be more convoluted than that.

From the article:

But while speaking with him, one observed a bulge in Serna’s waistband and asked him he if had a gun. When Serna replied in the affirmative, the officer ordered Serna to put his hands on his head and took the weapon.

Serna was arrested after follow-up questions showed he had a felony conviction, meaning he could not legally carry a firearm.


The court's problem with the arrest seems to be that they told Sema to put his hands on his head before they determined that he was a felon in possession. The court says this order had the effect of arresting Sema. I get the impression that if they asked him to surrender the gun, then asked him if he was a felon, then told him to place his hands on top of his head, the arrest would have been okay.
Link Posted: 8/11/2014 1:36:32 PM EDT
What I read is they turned a voluntary conversation into an arrest without a suspicion of a crime. Just because he was latter determined to be a felon in possession was pure luck. They should have assumed that the CCW was legal. Without any reason to suspect a crime the police or the subject could have simply walked away at any point. No reason for detention.

Terry has always required reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime afoot.
Link Posted: 8/11/2014 2:03:12 PM EDT
An otherwise legal activity cannot raise RS. Simply carrying a gun without some RS of a crime does not justify a pat down/frisk.
Link Posted: 8/11/2014 7:53:35 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/11/2014 8:01:28 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:


Ahhh that is why you ask for consent to pat a person down. They always say yes.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By Shenanigunz:
Originally Posted By ziegenbock:
Yes, this isn't news at all, except that the police were trying to get around the holding in Terry.

Not exactly. Terry was a case of a reasonable suspicion stop which then led to a frisk also based on RS. This case is about a consensual contact with no reasonable suspicion of a crime which then led to a frisk based on RS that the person was armed. The prosecution in this case merely argued the existing precedent in the 9th Circuit - US v. Orman. That court concluded that only the reasonable suspicion that the person was armed was sufficient to allow a frisk. That case was also originally from Arizona.


Ahhh that is why you ask for consent to pat a person down. They always say yes.


Really? Even if they are illegally armed?
Link Posted: 8/11/2014 8:20:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/11/2014 8:21:28 PM EDT by RifleCal30m1n00b]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By afroney:


Really? Even if they are illegally armed?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By afroney:
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By Shenanigunz:
Originally Posted By ziegenbock:
Yes, this isn't news at all, except that the police were trying to get around the holding in Terry.

Not exactly. Terry was a case of a reasonable suspicion stop which then led to a frisk also based on RS. This case is about a consensual contact with no reasonable suspicion of a crime which then led to a frisk based on RS that the person was armed. The prosecution in this case merely argued the existing precedent in the 9th Circuit - US v. Orman. That court concluded that only the reasonable suspicion that the person was armed was sufficient to allow a frisk. That case was also originally from Arizona.


Ahhh that is why you ask for consent to pat a person down. They always say yes.


Really? Even if they are illegally armed?


Really. In my brief stint at LE, in the mists of early 2011, I got consent to search a guy who had a bag of meth in his pocket.
"Anything illegal on you anywhere?"
"no"
"OK if I check to make sure?"
"yeah"
*pat pat pat crinkle*
"What's that?"
"crank"
*click-click*


ETA: the point is that people will almost always consent to a search, even when they're carrying something illegal and they know it.
Link Posted: 8/11/2014 8:51:24 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RifleCal30m1n00b:


Really. In my brief stint at LE, in the mists of early 2011, I got consent to search a guy who had a bag of meth in his pocket.
"Anything illegal on you anywhere?"
"no"
"OK if I check to make sure?"
"yeah"
*pat pat pat crinkle*
"What's that?"
"crank"
*click-click*


ETA: the point is that people will almost always consent to a search, even when they're carrying something illegal and they know it.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RifleCal30m1n00b:
Originally Posted By afroney:
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By Shenanigunz:
Originally Posted By ziegenbock:
Yes, this isn't news at all, except that the police were trying to get around the holding in Terry.

Not exactly. Terry was a case of a reasonable suspicion stop which then led to a frisk also based on RS. This case is about a consensual contact with no reasonable suspicion of a crime which then led to a frisk based on RS that the person was armed. The prosecution in this case merely argued the existing precedent in the 9th Circuit - US v. Orman. That court concluded that only the reasonable suspicion that the person was armed was sufficient to allow a frisk. That case was also originally from Arizona.


Ahhh that is why you ask for consent to pat a person down. They always say yes.


Really? Even if they are illegally armed?


Really. In my brief stint at LE, in the mists of early 2011, I got consent to search a guy who had a bag of meth in his pocket.
"Anything illegal on you anywhere?"
"no"
"OK if I check to make sure?"
"yeah"
*pat pat pat crinkle*
"What's that?"
"crank"
*click-click*


ETA: the point is that people will almost always consent to a search, even when they're carrying something illegal and they know it.


Consent to search or a terry frisk?
Because my understanding of a terry frisk is not meant to find drugs, only items that may be used as a weapon. If that bag of drugs could not have been mistaken for a weapon, how was that a valid question to ask him? Either way, wouldn't asking him what it was without reading him his Miranda rights violate his rights?
Link Posted: 8/11/2014 9:01:05 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By magnum_99:
An otherwise legal activity cannot raise RS. Simply carrying a gun without some RS of a crime does not justify a pat down/frisk.
View Quote


I was stopped by a bunny cop when I was open carrying. He wanted me to turn my handgun over to him. I asked him why. He said he wanted to run the serial number to see if it was stolen. I told him no.
Link Posted: 8/11/2014 9:17:18 PM EDT
Here is what I posted in AZ HTF


Couple of things.

1. Encounter went from consensual to detention:

At the suppression hearing, the State’s counsel maintained that if Serna, after putting his hands up, had simply said, "I don’t want to talk to you . . . , [he] could have walked away." But the record belies this assertion. Earlier at that hearing, Officer Richey had testified that his direction to Serna to put his hands on his head was an order, not a request.
A reasonable person would not have felt free to disregard such a command from a law enforcement officer. See State v. Rogers, 186 Ariz. 508, 509–10, 924 P.2d 1027, 1028–29 (1996) (finding that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave when the officer held out his badge and stated, "police officers, we need to talk to you").....The Supreme Court has said that "whenever a police officer . . . restrains [a person’s] freedom to walk away, he has ‘seized’ that person," and such a seizure implicates the Fourth Amendment. Terry, 392 U.S. at 16. Officers may not involuntarily detain individuals "even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds for doing so." Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 498 (1983).

The order and frisk at issue here "restrain[ed Serna’s] freedom to walk away" and thus constituted a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 16; see also id. at 19 (finding it beyond question that the officer seized Terry when he "took hold of him and patted down the outer surfaces of his clothing"). Such a seizure requires constitutional justification. See Royer, 460 U.S. at 498.


Now we all have heard of Terry v. Ohio, but when may an officer "stop and frisk"?

In Terry, the Court stated that an officer is justified in frisking individuals for weapons if the officer can reasonably conclude "[1] that criminal activity may be afoot and [2] that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous." 392 U.S. at 30 (emphasis added). The question before us now is whether a frisk must be supported by both of these conditions, or whether satisfying just one will suffice. The Supreme Court’s opinions are instructive. Just three years after Terry, the Court suggested that both conditions must be met, stating that officers may conduct weapons searches if the "officer is entitled to make a forcible stop, and has reason to believe that the suspect is armed and dangerous." Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 (1972) (internal footnote omitted). In 2009, the Supreme Court again reiterated this two-part analysis, explaining that in Terry, it upheld "stop and frisk" as constitutionally permissible if two conditions are met. First, the investigatory stop must be lawful. That requirement is met in an on-the-street encounter, Terry determined, when the police officer reasonably suspects that the person apprehended is committing or has committed a criminal offense. Second, to proceed from a stop to a frisk, the police officer must reasonably suspect that the person stopped is armed and dangerous. Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 326–27 (2009) (emphasis added). Justice Harlan’s concurrence in Terry provides the clearest explanation of the rationale for requiring that both conditions be met: [I]f the frisk is justified in order to protect the officer during an encounter with a citizen, the officer must first have constitutional grounds to insist on an encounter, to make a forcible stop. Any person, including a policeman, is at liberty to avoid a person he considers dangerous. If and when a policeman has a right instead to disarm such a person for his own protection, he must first have a right not to avoid him but to be in his presence. That right must be more than the liberty (again, possessed by every citizen) to address questions to other persons, for ordinarily the person addressed has an equal right to ignore his interrogator and walk away; he certainly need not submit to a frisk for the questioner’s protection. I would make it perfectly clear that the right to frisk . . . depends upon the reasonableness of a forcible stop to investigate a suspected criminal.

The Supreme Court found that; 1) because carrying a concealed weapon in Arizona is a legal activity, 2) the initial encounter was consensual, and 3) because the officers could not show that Serna was either involved in a criminal activity or posed a danger:

Here, the initial stop was based on consent, not on any asserted suspicion of criminal activity. Had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity existed before the encounter or developed during the encounter, given that Serna was armed, the officer may have had grounds to frisk Serna. See Narcisse, 927 N.E.2d at 446. But when officers consensually engage citizens on the street without having any evidence of wrongdoing, the mere presence of a weapon does not afford officers constitutional permission to search weapons-carrying individuals. To conclude
While we understand the need for officers to protect themselves in the course of their duties, we must balance that weighty interest against the "inestimable right" of citizens to be free from unreasonable governmental searches and seizures. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 8–9. That officers must have a constitutional justification to search an individual has been firmly established by Terry and its progeny. See id. at 30; see also Johnson, 555 U.S. at 326–27; Williams, 407 U.S. at 146.

IV. CONCLUSION

The court of appeals erred in holding that police officers may frisk individuals without establishing reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. We therefore vacate the court of appeals' opinion and reverse Serna's conviction and sentence.
e otherwise would potentially subject countless law-abiding persons to patdowns solely for exercising their right to carry a firearm.

....


And this part must be emphasized:

In a state such as Arizona that freely permits citizens to carry weapons, both visible and concealed, the mere presence of a gun cannot provide reasonable and articulable suspicion that the gun carrier is presently dangerous.

Link Posted: 8/12/2014 1:54:23 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By afroney:


Really? Even if they are illegally armed?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By afroney:
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By Shenanigunz:
Originally Posted By ziegenbock:
Yes, this isn't news at all, except that the police were trying to get around the holding in Terry.

Not exactly. Terry was a case of a reasonable suspicion stop which then led to a frisk also based on RS. This case is about a consensual contact with no reasonable suspicion of a crime which then led to a frisk based on RS that the person was armed. The prosecution in this case merely argued the existing precedent in the 9th Circuit - US v. Orman. That court concluded that only the reasonable suspicion that the person was armed was sufficient to allow a frisk. That case was also originally from Arizona.


Ahhh that is why you ask for consent to pat a person down. They always say yes.


Really? Even if they are illegally armed?


Smart criminals don't put themselves in a position to have a negative contact with the police, leading to the hypothesis of "There are a lot of dumb criminals out there doing dumb things." Dumb things to include agreeing to consensual searches when they have stuff they shouldn't have on them or in their car.
Link Posted: 8/12/2014 1:58:19 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:


Ahhh that is why you ask for consent to pat a person down. They always say yes.
View Quote
Yes, but your eyes are soooooo dreamy.


Link Posted: 8/12/2014 2:07:30 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:


Ahhh that is why you ask for consent to pat a person down. They always say yes.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By Shenanigunz:
Originally Posted By ziegenbock:
Yes, this isn't news at all, except that the police were trying to get around the holding in Terry.

Not exactly. Terry was a case of a reasonable suspicion stop which then led to a frisk also based on RS. This case is about a consensual contact with no reasonable suspicion of a crime which then led to a frisk based on RS that the person was armed. The prosecution in this case merely argued the existing precedent in the 9th Circuit - US v. Orman. That court concluded that only the reasonable suspicion that the person was armed was sufficient to allow a frisk. That case was also originally from Arizona.


Ahhh that is why you ask for consent to pat a person down. They always say yes.


Not always .... I have on occasion said " no ".

During an investigation one officer offered to give me a ride from one location in the investigation to another location also involved.
He asked if he could " pat me down " before allowing me to get into his cruiser.
I politely refused tell him that I did not need a ride, that I could walk across the damned street.
This refusal on my part made him suspicious, but still I walked across the street.
When I arrived there he told a supervisor that I refused a pat down, and the supervisor questioned me on it.
I simply said " I am wearing shorts and a t-shirt, tennis shoes and socks .... clearly I am unarmed so a 'pat down' for weapons is not needed. "
The supervisor said " well we may be looking for more than weapons "
I said " fine, you want to search me ...... get a warrant or place me under arrest "

In the end I did surrender my photo/video equipment to the police for 'investigation' ...... 5 days later they called to inform me the investigation was over and I could come and pick up my equipment.

TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS FROM A PUBLIC ACCESSED AREA IS NOT A CRIME !!!!!!!

Especially when the man with the camera is a credentialed photographer!!!!!!

When will the gestapo learn this ?????????????
Link Posted: 8/12/2014 2:19:38 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:


Ahhh that is why you ask for consent to pat a person down. They always say yes.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By Shenanigunz:
Originally Posted By ziegenbock:
Yes, this isn't news at all, except that the police were trying to get around the holding in Terry.

Not exactly. Terry was a case of a reasonable suspicion stop which then led to a frisk also based on RS. This case is about a consensual contact with no reasonable suspicion of a crime which then led to a frisk based on RS that the person was armed. The prosecution in this case merely argued the existing precedent in the 9th Circuit - US v. Orman. That court concluded that only the reasonable suspicion that the person was armed was sufficient to allow a frisk. That case was also originally from Arizona.


Ahhh that is why you ask for consent to pat a person down. They always say yes.

What do you do if they say no? Do you let them be on their way? Or is there a presumption that they are hiding something that might endanger you, and thus give you enough RS to conduct a pat-down?
Link Posted: 8/12/2014 4:12:59 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/12/2014 4:13:43 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/12/2014 4:18:55 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By oldschoolimages:

TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS FROM A PUBLIC ACCESSED AREA IS NOT A CRIME !!!!!!!
View Quote

Did you not see the "taking pics of kids in a park" thread???

At least half of arfcommers would have beaten you to death with your own camera.
Link Posted: 8/12/2014 4:41:22 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By PaDanby:


Smart criminals don't put themselves in a position to have a negative contact with the police, leading to the hypothesis of "There are a lot of dumb criminals out there doing dumb things." Dumb things to include agreeing to consensual searches when they have stuff they shouldn't have on them or in their car.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By PaDanby:
Originally Posted By afroney:
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By Shenanigunz:
Originally Posted By ziegenbock:
Yes, this isn't news at all, except that the police were trying to get around the holding in Terry.

Not exactly. Terry was a case of a reasonable suspicion stop which then led to a frisk also based on RS. This case is about a consensual contact with no reasonable suspicion of a crime which then led to a frisk based on RS that the person was armed. The prosecution in this case merely argued the existing precedent in the 9th Circuit - US v. Orman. That court concluded that only the reasonable suspicion that the person was armed was sufficient to allow a frisk. That case was also originally from Arizona.


Ahhh that is why you ask for consent to pat a person down. They always say yes.


Really? Even if they are illegally armed?


Smart criminals don't put themselves in a position to have a negative contact with the police, leading to the hypothesis of "There are a lot of dumb criminals out there doing dumb things." Dumb things to include agreeing to consensual searches when they have stuff they shouldn't have on them or in their car.


Good point.

I know a handful of cops that will frisk you/frisk your car regardless of consent. RS is a very 'squishy' thing and only seems to get challanged if something naughty is found and brought up in court.
Link Posted: 8/12/2014 4:42:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2014 4:51:34 AM EDT by oldschoolimages]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By pokey074:

Did you not see the "taking pics of kids in a park" thread???

At least half of arfcommers would have beaten you to death with your own camera.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By pokey074:
Originally Posted By oldschoolimages:

TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS FROM A PUBLIC ACCESSED AREA IS NOT A CRIME !!!!!!!

Did you not see the "taking pics of kids in a park" thread???

At least half of arfcommers would have beaten you to death with your own camera.


Who? The Keyboard Commandos? Mall Ninjas? ROFLMAO

I was once accused of that when testing out a newly repaired lens in a park.

I gave the police 100% access to my camera and ALL DIGITAL MEDIA and recording devices.

I even surrendered my permit and firearm as well. ( when you carry around over $25K in photography gear, you carry the means to protect it )

I even allowed them to search my white cargo van I was driving that day.

They were pissed because as one Sgt. said ,,,,,,, " we wasted our time and all we get to see are photos of fucking birds in flight "

I was testing a $10,000.00 600mm prime lens ....... not something one would use to take pictures of children in a park ... unless they were 1/4 mile away from the park!!!!!


This is a pic of that lens .....

Link Posted: 8/12/2014 4:48:05 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Paul:
So how does this sit with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)?

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Paul:
So how does this sit with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)?

"In Terry this Court recognized that a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest. The Fourth Amendment does not require a policeman who lacks the precise level of information necessary for probable cause to arrest to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur or a criminal to escape. On the contrary, Terry v Ohio recognizes that it may be the essence of good police work to adopt an intermediate response. 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.

"The Court recognized in Terry v Ohio that the policeman making a reasonable investigatory stop should not be denied the opportunity to protect himself from attack by a hostile suspect. When an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others, he may conduct a limited protective search for concealed weapons. The purpose of this limited search is not to discover evidence of crime, but to allow the officer to pursue his investigation without fear of violence, and thus the frisk for weapons might be equally necessary and reasonable, whether or not carrying a concealed weapon violated any applicable state law. So long as the officer is entitled to make a forcible stop, and has reason to believe that the suspect is armed and dangerous, he may conduct a weapons search limited in scope to this protective purpose."

It squares with it.
Link Posted: 8/12/2014 4:50:30 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By oldschoolimages:


Not always .... I have on occasion said " no ".

During an investigation one officer offered to give me a ride from one location in the investigation to another location also involved.
He asked if he could " pat me down " before allowing me to get into his cruiser.
I politely refused tell him that I did not need a ride, that I could walk across the damned street.
This refusal on my part made him suspicious, but still I walked across the street.
When I arrived there he told a supervisor that I refused a pat down, and the supervisor questioned me on it.
I simply said " I am wearing shorts and a t-shirt, tennis shoes and socks .... clearly I am unarmed so a 'pat down' for weapons is not needed. "
The supervisor said " well we may be looking for more than weapons "
I said " fine, you want to search me ...... get a warrant or place me under arrest "

In the end I did surrender my photo/video equipment to the police for 'investigation' ...... 5 days later they called to inform me the investigation was over and I could come and pick up my equipment.

TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS FROM A PUBLIC ACCESSED AREA IS NOT A CRIME !!!!!!!

Especially when the man with the camera is a credentialed photographer!!!!!!

When will the gestapo learn this ?????????????
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By oldschoolimages:
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By Shenanigunz:
Originally Posted By ziegenbock:
Yes, this isn't news at all, except that the police were trying to get around the holding in Terry.

Not exactly. Terry was a case of a reasonable suspicion stop which then led to a frisk also based on RS. This case is about a consensual contact with no reasonable suspicion of a crime which then led to a frisk based on RS that the person was armed. The prosecution in this case merely argued the existing precedent in the 9th Circuit - US v. Orman. That court concluded that only the reasonable suspicion that the person was armed was sufficient to allow a frisk. That case was also originally from Arizona.


Ahhh that is why you ask for consent to pat a person down. They always say yes.


Not always .... I have on occasion said " no ".

During an investigation one officer offered to give me a ride from one location in the investigation to another location also involved.
He asked if he could " pat me down " before allowing me to get into his cruiser.
I politely refused tell him that I did not need a ride, that I could walk across the damned street.
This refusal on my part made him suspicious, but still I walked across the street.
When I arrived there he told a supervisor that I refused a pat down, and the supervisor questioned me on it.
I simply said " I am wearing shorts and a t-shirt, tennis shoes and socks .... clearly I am unarmed so a 'pat down' for weapons is not needed. "
The supervisor said " well we may be looking for more than weapons "
I said " fine, you want to search me ...... get a warrant or place me under arrest "

In the end I did surrender my photo/video equipment to the police for 'investigation' ...... 5 days later they called to inform me the investigation was over and I could come and pick up my equipment.

TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS FROM A PUBLIC ACCESSED AREA IS NOT A CRIME !!!!!!!

Especially when the man with the camera is a credentialed photographer!!!!!!

When will the gestapo learn this ?????????????

Link Posted: 8/12/2014 5:05:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2014 5:06:13 AM EDT by peekay]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By afroney:


Good point.

I know a handful of cops that will frisk you/frisk your car regardless of consent. RS is a very 'squishy' thing and only seems to get challanged if something naughty is found and brought up in court.
View Quote

Those assholes are a payday waiting to happen.

Link Posted: 8/12/2014 5:15:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2014 5:22:05 AM EDT by Intune69]
There was a SC ruling on the same day as Terry that shot down a search because the officer couldn't/didn't articulate AND have reason to believe that the person with whom he was dealing with might have been armed and presently dangerous and searched him anyway.
Link Posted: 8/12/2014 6:05:57 AM EDT
What if the K-9 alerts that the tires are stolen?
Link Posted: 8/12/2014 6:15:05 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ODA_564:
What if the K-9 alerts that the tires are stolen?
View Quote


Remember, just because the tires aren't stolen now doesn't meant they weren't stolen in the past.


Link Posted: 8/12/2014 6:23:22 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RifleCal30m1n00b:
.....................

Really. In my brief stint at LE, in the mists of early 2011, I got consent to search a guy who had a bag of meth in his pocket.
"Anything illegal on you anywhere?"
"no"
"OK if I check to make sure?"
"yeah"
*pat pat pat crinkle*
"What's that?"
"crank"
*click-click*


ETA: the point is that people will almost always consent to a search, even when they're carrying something illegal and they know it.
View Quote

I've seen this any number of times on COPS and always figured they were Hollywooding it. If the guy says, "take a hike" show's over, can't sell any more soap.

But it looks like it's merely proof that the Idiotocracy exists.
Link Posted: 8/12/2014 6:26:25 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By callgood:

I've seen this any number of times on COPS and always figured they were Hollywooding it. If the guy says, "take a hike" show's over, can't sell any more soap.

But it looks like it's merely proof that the Idiotocracy exists.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By callgood:
Originally Posted By RifleCal30m1n00b:
.....................

Really. In my brief stint at LE, in the mists of early 2011, I got consent to search a guy who had a bag of meth in his pocket.
"Anything illegal on you anywhere?"
"no"
"OK if I check to make sure?"
"yeah"
*pat pat pat crinkle*
"What's that?"
"crank"
*click-click*


ETA: the point is that people will almost always consent to a search, even when they're carrying something illegal and they know it.

I've seen this any number of times on COPS and always figured they were Hollywooding it. If the guy says, "take a hike" show's over, can't sell any more soap.

But it looks like it's merely proof that the Idiotocracy exists.

[Target rich environment...]
[Must resist...]
[But grammar...]
[And irony...]

[MUST RESIST!!]
Link Posted: 8/12/2014 6:27:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2014 6:28:58 AM EDT by afroney]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By peekay:

Those assholes are a payday waiting to happen.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By peekay:
Originally Posted By afroney:


Good point.

I know a handful of cops that will frisk you/frisk your car regardless of consent. RS is a very 'squishy' thing and only seems to get challanged if something naughty is found and brought up in court.

Those assholes are a payday waiting to happen.



Or they wind up doing something stupid. Like beating the shit out of a man getting hammered in his own garage. Victim was not doing anything illegal.

Cop lost his job over that one. He might be in prison right now for the bad beating
Link Posted: 8/12/2014 3:55:32 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JLH3:


Remember, just because the tires aren't stolen now doesn't meant they weren't stolen in the past.


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JLH3:
Originally Posted By ODA_564:
What if the K-9 alerts that the tires are stolen?


Remember, just because the tires aren't stolen now doesn't meant they weren't stolen in the past.




Well played.
Link Posted: 8/12/2014 3:58:09 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Paul:
So how does this sit with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)?

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Paul:
So how does this sit with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)?

"In Terry this Court recognized that a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest. The Fourth Amendment does not require a policeman who lacks the precise level of information necessary for probable cause to arrest to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur or a criminal to escape. On the contrary, Terry v Ohio recognizes that it may be the essence of good police work to adopt an intermediate response. 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.

"The Court recognized in Terry v Ohio that the policeman making a reasonable investigatory stop should not be denied the opportunity to protect himself from attack by a hostile suspect. When an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others, he may conduct a limited protective search for concealed weapons. The purpose of this limited search is not to discover evidence of crime, but to allow the officer to pursue his investigation without fear of violence, and thus the frisk for weapons might be equally necessary and reasonable, whether or not carrying a concealed weapon violated any applicable state law. So long as the officer is entitled to make a forcible stop, and has reason to believe that the suspect is armed and dangerous, he may conduct a weapons search limited in scope to this protective purpose."



It says the same thing.
Top Top