hotrod said:
Because we believe that LEO should be held to a higher standard during encounters with law abiding citizens, you think we should be criminalized.
I disagree.
I think LEO should be held to the same standard no matter who they're dealing with.
They should obey & uphold the law, just as they took an oath to do.
Sonora Rebel said:
The
Terry decision says:
...the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous".
...
This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch.
...
in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion.
...
it is simply fantastic to urge that such a procedure performed in public by a policeman while the citizen stands helpless, perhaps facing a wall with his hands raised, is a 'petty indignity.' It is a serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person, which may inflict great indignity and arouse strong resentment, and it is not to be undertaken lightly.
I wish the TSA would get wind of that last paragraph. Or at least, the lawyers for people who have been groped & assaulted.
So many people think "armed and dangerous" is one word...
The ruling says "armed and presently dangerous".
So there are 4 criteria which must be met before a stop & frisk is legal:
1) reasonable beliefs based on specific articulable facts
2) crime
3) armed
4) dangerous
The FBI says that criminals don't carry openly & very very rarely use holsters. Surely professionals keep up with research in their field, so officers know of those findings & understand that someone carrying openly is not a criminal. So no, it's not at all legal to stop someone carrying openly simply because they're carrying openly.
LEO's can (and will... and do) stop people for any cursory reason.
Doesn't mean it's legal. And since it's generally not, officers who do so are putting themselves & their departments at legal risk. It's so much better to follow the law.
Another point y'all seem to have ignored: 'Disorderly Conduct - Failure to Obey'
Again from
Terry, quoting Justice White:
There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way...
the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest...
Also, I found GA statute 16-11-39 talking about disorderly conduct:
(a) A person commits the offense of disorderly conduct when such person commits any of the following:
(1) Acts in a violent or tumultuous manner toward another person whereby such person is placed in reasonable fear of the safety of such person's life, limb, or health;
(2) Acts in a violent or tumultuous manner toward another person whereby the property of such person is placed in danger of being damaged or destroyed;
(3) Without provocation, uses to or of another person in such other person's presence, opprobrious or abusive words which by their very utterance tend to incite to an immediate breach of the peace, that is to say, words which as a matter of common knowledge and under ordinary circumstances will, when used to or of another person in such other person's presence, naturally tend to provoke violent resentment, that is, words commonly called "fighting words"; or
(4) Without provocation, uses obscene and vulgar or profane language in the presence of or by telephone to a person under the age of 14 years which threatens an immediate breach of the peace.
Explain, please, where ignoring or refusing a request to speak with someone shows up in that list of actions?
The only listing for "failure to obey" [a.k.a. contempt of cop] is under the UCMJ section.
Explain, please, where that concept applies to regular citizens dealing with LEO?
